If you ask the “conservative” talking heads–Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc.–who THE best conservative president of the last 100 years was, they will say Ronald Reagan. If you ask their dogs, they will bark “Ronald Reagan.” Their gerbils will say other things, but everyone knows you can’t trust rodents. Ask the regular conservative Wanda and Mack (Jane and Joe is so cliche), and they’ll give you the same response as the dogs and people. Ronald Reagan is the guy we conservatives and Republicans have been taught to worship.

Except, when presented with a candidate as conservative as Reagan, no, probably more conservative (I’m talking Mitt Romney), many of these “conservatives” get out their inquisitional torches. Which is a big reason why the GOP primaries are as fluid as they are at this point.

As a side note, have you noticed that these talking heads and the mainstream media either have a hobby horse they ride above all else (Rush Limbaugh and his anti global warming crusade) or they seem to promote some flavor-of-the-day litmus test for each election. In one election, they’re going on and on about homosexual marriage. The next election, it’s a talking head approved stance on Taliban bombing. The next, it’s the fact that budgets must be balanced. They line the candidates up and then start whacking them based on these flavor-of-the-day tests. It’s like going to buy a car and focusing all your attention on the steering wheel.

Anyway, I think many of us have forgotten what THE so-called best conservative president of the last 100 years looked like. If Ronald Reagan were to run today as John Smith, the conservative talking heads would drop him like a hot potato.  You don’t believe me? Well, let’s see how he stacks up.

1.      ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

1. Reagan signed in amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens. The south-west-east-north-of-the-border kind, not the ones with green antennas.
2. Talking Head Response: After crapping a brick, they would proclaim that John Smith, aka Ronald Reagan, is a pro illegal immigration RINO and must be thrown out!

2.      ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

1. A few weeks ago Rush Limbaugh told a caller that Romney is not conservative because of his stance on man-made global warming (Romney says he doesn’t know, but there seems to be evidence men contribue; women, of course, never to contribute to such things–they’re too smart), which Limbaugh thinks will lead to big-government regulation of emissions etc.
2. YET AS GOVERNOR, Reagan established the Air Resources Board to battle California’s worst-in-the-nation smog problem. In a 1984 radio address to the nation, Reagan took credit for the strong action he took in California to combat smog, saying: “I’m proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.”
3. THEN AS PRESIDENT, he signed, with great pride, what many consider THE most successful environmental treaty of all time – the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which regulates emissions. Back in those days Ozone depletion was the Global Warming. Reagan believed it, despite folks questioning the science and was happy to regulate.
4. In the 1987 State of the union he said: “We are also developing proposals that make use of market incentives to control air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and the causes of acid rain.”
5. What?! A cap and trade like program? Yes, putting Bush in charge. In 1990, the first Bush Administration successfully pushed through legislation establishing a cap-and-trade program to reduce acid rain—the program Reagan started!
6. Talking Head Response: John Smith is a total pro-environmental regulation RINO, please queue Al Gore singing “Burning Ring of Fire”

3.      ABORTION

1. Reagan signed a permissive law that allowed abortions. Since that law went into effect more than 2,000,000 abortions have happened in the Golden State.
2. Reagan says he failed to see how it would be abused. He blamed his own inexperience, stating that had he been in office longer he would have realized that the bill was wrong.  He blamed doctors for misinterpreting the bill. President Reagan stated his prolife position by saying: “Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does.”  BUT he never introduced a bill to ban abortion or amend what he’d done. Not in California, nor as president.
3. Furthermore, today’s conservative inquisitors would point to his Supreme Court appointments. He appointed the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor.  Anti-abortion groups were livid, fearing, rightfully as it turned out, that Mrs. O’Connor would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade.  He appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy who had a long history of supporting expanded rights of privacy, gay rights, and preserving a woman’s right to choose.
4. Talking Head Response: actions speak louder than words–John Smith is a pro-choice RINO

4.      UNIONS

1. Reagan was a union president 8 times in a row.
2. Reagan, aka John Smith, also had lots of troubling connections to the Teamsters, who endorsed him, and who suddenly saw less investigation of their leaders for corruption. This is during the Jimmy Hoffa organized crime years.
3. Talking Head Response: choke, ack, sputter–Smith is a pro-union gangsta RINO!

5.      GUN CONTROL

1. It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.” Yeah, he aimed to stop the Black Panthers et al, but affected all gun owners.
2. Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. “I support the Brady Bill,” he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, “and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.” He was right with Clinton on that issue.
3. The Brady Bill, for the first time ever, instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.
4. NRA spent millions fighting it, when it pass they mounted cases in a number of states wanting to have it overturned as unconstitutional.
5. Talking Head Response: anti-gun RINO!

6.      FISCAL POLICY

1. As Governor, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then. Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled.
2. As President he continued. While he did cut taxes his first year, he signed into law tax increases of some nature in every year from 1981 to 1987. Furthermore, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.
3. Talking Head Response: tax and spend RINO!

7.      RELIGION

1. Smith, aka Reagan, let Nancy’s astrologer affect his schedule
2. Talking Head Response: troubling devilishness (scary for evangelicals everywhere!), even if he only did it to make Nancy feel peace

Reagan the RINO? Are you kidding? And yet Reagan would be hounded out of the Republican party if he ran today. The talking heads would sound the warning long and loud, which is a shame.

On the other hand, I’m not saying we need another Reagan. Clones never pan out–hasn’t anyone seen Multiplicty with Michael Keaton?! And despite the recent zombie craze, I don’t want one in the White House, even if the world would be a better place if said zombie should eat Vladimir Putin’s brains out. I tire very quickly of Reagan worship. Or any other politician worship. As good as Reagan was, I disagree with a number of things he did. What I am saying is that those who want to get another president “as good as Reagan” had better know what such a president looks like. And it ain’t the caricature that’s being held up today by many conservatives, especially the talking heads, who seem to gloss over the facts of history.

Sherlock Holmes & Mission Impossible

I have been looking forward to two movies this holiday season. One of them was as good as I’d hoped it would be. The other disappointed me because the story tellers forgot to make things clear. The two movies were Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

I loved the first Sherlock Holmes movie—the story was intriguing and plotted well, the atmosphere and music were amazing, and the characters and relationships were even better. In fact, the movie presented some of the most delightful characters I’ve enjoyed over the last few years. So it was a no-brainer to plan in a date to see this new episode.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows provided the same great atmosphere and music as I enjoyed before. Holmes and Watson were as wonderful as they’d ever been. The film introduced a wonderful new character: Madam Simza Heron, a gutsy gypsy who you can’t help but want to know better. And it brought on Professor James Moriarty, the uber-villian. There was plenty of the wit that we enjoyed in the first one. It had all the elements to work.

However, the film fell down in its plotting. There were many times when I had no idea why the characters were doing what they were doing or how it fit into the overall threat. At other times, it appeared Sherlock could have taken out the villain but didn’t only because it would have ruined the plot.

The film makers also decided to kill off one of the characters, and therefore relationships, that had provided so much satisfaction in the first movie. And they did it without much fanfare. Who thinks it’s a good idea to kill off beloved characters like that? If you’re going to kill someone we love, you’d better make it meaningful and the core of the film. Alas, they didn’t.

In fact, it felt like there was too much stuffed into this film. Cool ideas that couldn’t be explored or have much impact including facial surgery for spies, a lost brother, European politics, resistance fighters, a henchman we hardly see. The wonderful Madam Simza Heron didn’t play the pivotal role she could have. So unlike Irene Adler in the first movie who becomes central to the story, she’s more of a bit of the setting.

If you loved the first film, you’ll have to see this. There’s a lot of good. But you must go knowing it’s a grade lower than the first film.

Now, I stopped liking the Mission Impossible movies about thirty minutes into the second in the series. But the previews for Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol intrigued me. I like Tom Cruise as an actor. And so we decided to give it a try.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol didn’t provide the atmosphere or super-delightful characters and relationships of Sherlock Holmes. But that’s not to say its characters were tepid. On the contrary, the cast was great with a lot of funny interplay. Furthermore, unlike some action films where everything seems to work for the hero, a lot of things go wrong for Tom Cruise’s character. These problems and his reactions are part of what make the movie.

The story also provided plenty of “action” but did it in a new way. This is the first time, for example, I’ve seen a car chase in a sandstorm. And it was a fab chase. It’s also the first time I’ve seen a final battle in an automated parking lot. The director and writers did a good job choosing new twists on common action elements.

But a story needs more than characters and new sights—the plot has to make sense. Especially when the plot takes center stage, which it does in action movies. And I’m happy to say that I never once wondered why our characters were doing something or how it affected the main threat. Furthermore, every one of the characters made a difference. The result was that I thoroughly enjoyed the film from start to finish. I can’t wait to watch it again. If you like action films, I think you’ll enjoy Ghost Protocol.

The Art of the Shaving

When I was on a mission in the Netherlands I was an idiot and did not take care of my face in the winter. I’d hop onto the bicycle with the temperature hovering around zero degrees (not counting the wind chill) and bike out with Fearless Companion to an area to meet with people or knock on doors. And I’d do it with hardly a thing covering my face and ears. As a result, I damaged my skin.

So now when I’m exposed to cold, my face flushes and stays that way for some time even when I’m in a warm house. I can’t wear cologne. And I’ve had a love/hate relationship with shaving. I can’t stand the prickle of a beard and so love to shave, but I hate the fact that when I shave, my face turns the color of a tomato for four to six hours. And this is when I use shaving cream specifically formulated for “sensitive skin.”

But then I walked into The Art of Shaving store in Fashion Place Mall and learned that those shaving creams designed for sensitive skins weren’t super gentle. They just numbed the skin so you didn’t feel the shave. The folks at The Art of Shaving suggested, of course, I use their product.

I bought a kit (I’m a sucker for good sales pitches even when I know I’m being suckered) which included: a badger hair brush (optional), pre-shave oil, shaving cream, and after-shave balm. They had five types to choose from: unscented, lemon, sandalwood, ocean kelp, and lavender. I selected the lavender because it was formulated for sensitive skin. At first I was worried about being overpowered with the smell, but was pleasantly surprised to find the scent as light as a feather. I didn’t need a new razor; they said my Mach3 was just fine.

I came home with my bag expecting a huge dose of buyer’s remorse. Except after my first shave with their product, my face didn’t flush. Could this really be a product that worked? I wasn’t willing to make that conclusion at the time. But now, after about a month of shaving, I can honestly say that this is the best shave I’ve had in years. My face doesn’t flush. The after-shave balm does what a balm is supposed to do–sooth. There’s no alcohol burn. In fact, I use the after-shave balm on non-shave days. If your skin hates shaving, let me suggest you visit theartofshaving.com and order some product or go to one of their stores. I think you’ll also become a fan. 

Info for Choosing a Career

There are many things I wished I’d done differently when choosing a career. I wish I’d broadened my horizon on the horde of different careers possible. I wish I’d really looked at what the various careers earned on average. Luckily for those looking to select a new career today, Utah’s Department of Workforce Services compiles data on more than 700 occupational wages and shows you the average and median annual wage as well as the average for inexperienced folks in that occupation.

Not only does looking through the list help you see options you might not have considered, it also helps you get a realistic expectation for what you might earn in that profession. Now, the list, although large, doesn’t show every possible occupation (FBI agent, Marine) or every permutation of the occupations shown. For example, there’s one line for accountants and auditors, but there are tax accountants, fraud accountants, security accountants, auditing accountants, etc. Nevertheless, this is an excellent list to begin a search.

To get the list, go to this state website: http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/default.do. Click on “Utah Occupational Wages.” That will open a page with a map of Utah. Click on the link on the right “Utah Occupational Wages” to get the Excel spreadsheet of all 700+ occupations listed.

Pure Delight

One of the most delightful literary characters to appear in the last decade is the cheeky Bartimaeus–a five-thousand-year-old djinni (“genie”) who plays the lead role in Jonathan Stroud’s trilogy The Amulet of Samarkand, The Golem’s Eye, and Ptolemy’s Gate.

In Stroud’s world, magicians have no magic in themselves, but they do have the lore to summon and enslave demons, who can work magic. There are demons of various levels and powers. The lowest regularly summoned and enslaved are Imps, who can be crude and like to tell outright whoppers, but are good for standing watch and carrying messages. Next come Foliots, which Bartimaeus describes as “cut price djinn.” In the middle of the great chain of beings are the Djinn themselves, whose clever intelligence Bartimaeus extols, followed by Afrits, and finally Marids, who are rarely summoned because they are too strong for any but the most powerful magicians to control. Of Marids, Bartimaeus insightfully reveals that they are “dreadfully full of themselves.”

In the trilogy, Bartimaeus is summoned and enslaved to do the bidding of a sometimes jerkish young magician who learns to be a better person, despite himself. Of course, along the way the magician sends Bartimaeus in great peril, which he eludes with cunning, sardonic wit, and many good one-liners. I read the first book, loved it, then listened to all three read by Simon Jones, who makes these stories even better. The sad news is that I finished them. I simply wasn’t ready to let Bartimaeus go.

Which is why I was so happy to find that Stroud recently released a fourth book: The Ring of Solomon, which is a stand-alone prequel to the trilogy. The family and I just finished listening to it, and it is every bit as good, if not better, than the first three.

This story is set in biblical times where King Solomon has risen to uncontested power because of his possession of an all-powerful ring which allows him to summon hordes of powerful demons in a blink. Bartimaeus is enslaved to one of Solomon’s magicians.  A mean man, who Bartimaeus catches in a mistake and escapes, principally by devouring him. But Solomon doesn’t take kindly to that, and orders Khaba, a sinister and cruel magician, to summon him back to make an example for the other demons.

Meanwhile, the Queen of Sheba, having denied Solomon’s marriage proposal three times, is sent an extortion threat.  Angry and frightened, she sends Asmira, a young woman and loyal captain of the guard, to Jerusalem to assassinate Solomon.

Bartimaeus and Asmira hook up and find themselves in quite a pickle as they attempt to solve their problems. The story provides lots of humor, adventure, peril for both Bartimaeus and Asmira, and a number of surprising turnarounds. It also, in its own way, makes a comment on leadership, loyalty, and zealotry.

You’ll find it in the middle-grade section of your bookstore, but don’t let the placement fool you into thinking it’s not for adults. Like the best stories, it offers something for everyone. It’s a perfect blend of insight and entertainment and had my whole family, oldest to youngest, spellbound for the duration as we listened to it riding in the car. This is one of my favorite books this year. And if you want to really indulge yourself, listen to the audio book read by Simon Jones.

Travel to Medieval England

I love learning new things about places and peoples, even if it’s a place I’ve “been” to before, which is why Ian Mortimer’s The Time Traveler’s Guide to Medieval England intrigued me. The first page convinced me to buy to book. And I’m so happy I did.

I’ve read my fair share of interesting and well-written texts on this subject, including, among others, Life in a Medieval City and Life in a Medieval Village by Frances and Joseph Gies, Standards of Living in the later Middle Ages by Christopher Dyer, The Medieval Castle by Philip Warner, Daily Life in the Middle Ages by Paul B. Newman, and Power and Profit: The Merchant In Medieval Europe by Peter Spufford. All engrossing reads. What sets Mortimer’s book apart is that he not only approaches the topic as a travel guide that leads to you interesting sights and shares fascinating tidbits about the place, but he also helps you imagine how it would be, as a 21^st century person, to actually travel there.

For example, where would you go if you got sick? What happens if you’re robbed, where do you report the crime, and should you? Where might you get food and would it be something you’d find palatable? How will you get from place to place? Why kind of entertainment can you expect? And what can you wear without offending your hosts?

Mortimer focuses on the fourteenth century England, since this period comes closest to the popular idea of the medieval times. He tackles the topics of the landscape, people, the Medieval character, basic essentials, what to wear, traveling, where to stay, what to eat and drink, health and hygiene, the law, and what to do. And he does it all in a chatty, clear, and informative manner, with a bit of humor thrown in for spice.

Each page was a delight, and I found myself feeling like I was there. Furthermore, I learned a number of things that I hadn’t picked up in my previous readings. I’m tempted to quote all sorts of interesting tidbits he shares about the age, but I’ll refrain. If you are at all interested in the Middle Ages, I think you’ll love this book.