What The World Doesn't Need: Another Flavor of Doritos

I like having a choice as much as anyone. Today, after exhaustive research I've determined that there are fifteen flavors of Doritos. I believe that is about thirteen more than necessary.

Now, I'm like everyone else. I have tortilla chip needs. But I'd like to meet the person who, scratching his or her belly decides their in the mood for chips, but not just any chips. No, they need Sizzlin Picante and they need it now! Does Subway make flavor suggestions based on the type of sandwich you buy? (British accent) Spicy Sweet Chili will go excellent with that ham and cheese sir.

Below are the flavors.

* Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch

* Cool Ranch

* Fiery Habanero

* Nacho Cheese

* Natural White Nacho Cheese

* Poppin' Jalapeño

* Ranchero

* Salsa Verde

* Smokin' Cheddar BBQ

* Spicy Nacho

* Toasted Corn

* Zesty Taco

* Cheeseburger (X-13D)

* Sizzlin' Picante

* Spicy Sweet Chili

Fictional Account:

Wife: Did you get the chips?
Husband: Yeah I got the chips.

Wife: Did you get Doritos?

Husband: Yep.

Wife: Natural White Nacho Cheese Doritos?

Husband: Uh, sure I got Nacho Cheese.

Wife: Nacho Cheese or White Nacho Cheese?

Husband: I don't know... I got Nacho Cheese.

Wife: (Screaming) You know what regular Nacho Cheese does to my complexion. I specifically told you White Nacho Cheese. How hard is it for you to get White Nacho Cheese Doritos?

Husband: I hate Frito-Lay.

Is the Far Left Joining the Anti-Obama Movement?

When it comes to those who oppose President Obama, it makes sense that the Tea Party crowd has received most of the attention. I don't consider myself a member of the Tea Party, if there is such a thing, but I respect their efforts and see it as one of the most genuine grass-roots movements of our time.

Well known liberal Robert Reich, former Sec of Labor for Clinton, has a provocative and I think largely truthful piece today on the increasingly louder criticism of the President and Democrats that is coming not from the right but from the far left.

Tea Partiers are getting all the press. But the anger on the left, including much of the Democratic base, is almost as intense. And it spells trouble for Democrats a few months from now.

What are they so upset about? The Dems frankly are ignoring the far left agenda. While Tea Partiers are upset about Obamacare, the far left is livid because the plan doesn't go far enough. And they don't like our continued involvement in Afghanistan (which I support). They also see the President as being too quick to compromise.

Secretary Reich doesn't mention it, but similar criticism has been coming from the Latino community. While there is support the Administration's legal challenge to the now infamous AZ law, many are furious that Obama has not come through on his promise of comprehensive immigration reform. Frankly, before the AZ law, they felt like they were being ignored.

What does this all mean? Well in terms of politics, it's a rare politician who manages to enrage everyone. And the signs are there that this combined with the blow back from a right that is more galvanized than ever could really be trouble for the Dems.

Ask Jimmy Carter. He knows.

Stark Article on What Afghanistan Faces if We Leave Too Soon

Time Magazine this week features a provocative photograph of a young woman who had her nose and ears sliced off by her own husband under the authority of the Taliban.

I continue to strongly support the President's policy in Afghanistan. This article underscores the need we have to continue our efforts there. Maybe we can't reshape Afghanistan the way we were able to mold Iraq. But we can at least make sure that the murderous likes of the Taliban are kept in check.

Leaving prematurely will have dire consequences. Want proof? Ask the South Vietnamese.

If He Really Wants to Help...

Loved this headline in the New York Times Today:

"To Help Democrats in the Fall, Obama May Stay Away"

Besides the obvious - like just how bad things are for your presidency when the NY Times is printing articles like this - I thought of how much good the President could do by staying away: from the country.

No I'm not calling for his resignation. I'm thinking of how much good he, and the Federal government at large, could do by staying out of things. Out of the auto industry, out of healthcare, out of our personal lives, out of job market. Leave us alone (and our money too)!

Obama is willing to help Democrats by staying away. Why can't he do the same for the country?

Who is Really Betting Against American Workers?

Recently, in what was heralded by the MSM as a major "win" for our country's masses of unemployed workers, Congress, at the urging of the White House passed the latest extension of unemployment benefits. "Checks will start flowing again soon" beamed the New York Times. "Relief is on the way" shouted the Associated Press.

This last week, while I was sitting with 2,000 wannabe lawyers during the Bar Exam, President Obama was sitting with the "ladies" (can that term honestly be used to describe Whoopi Goldberg) of "The View." You know your presidency is circling the proverbial drain when you are taking questions on a couch with Joy Behar.

Though most of the coverage surrounding the show had to do with whether Mr. Obama was soiling the Presidency by appearing on a day-time talk show, I was struck by the President's following comment:

Touting increases in private sector jobs, restructuring and recovery in the auto industry, and saving thousands of jobs that could have been lost, President Obama said -- with an eye towards the future -- "Don't bet against American workers."

The unemployment bill extended unemployment benefits for workers unemployed as long as 99 weeks.

Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that there are people out there who are not in desperate need of help. I'm not now unemployed nor have I ever been unemployed for anything close to two years. I also know that unemployment benefits don't even come close to covering most salaries.

My questions: Why does the President and other liberal elites feel like they have to "take care" of these workers? And why is the President ignoring the vast majority of economists who have stated that continually extending benefits is only prolonging the unemployment problem? How you may ask? Because by continuing to pay benefits, we are taking away the incentive for people to go out and get a job!

Does Obama really think that American workers are so weak that won't surviving without him (and an average benefit of $309.00 a month)?

If the President were truly betting for the American workers, he'd immediately lower our corporate tax rates, which are among the highest in the world. Then he'd be showing his trust in the workers of our country, the best the worlds has, are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

Even more important than that would be for the President, and the Federal Government, to get out of the private job market! The continual meddling of the Fed is only prolonging and distorting the unemployment problem and the job market in general.

Obama is like a parent who needs to be told that there 35 year old son still living at home needs to be kicked out of the house. Yes the guy is going to struggle at first, but trust me, he'll be fine.

The President is right, no one should bet against the American Worker. I just wish he'd be the first to stop.

No More Music Television on MTV - Is this Really News?

As a kid I swore that when I was older I would never begin a story with "when I was your age." But there is one subject that I can't help but make such comparisons in discussing. The price of gas you say? Nope. What you could buy with a dollar? Don't care.

If I hear someone under 25 mention the former Music Television channel (now exclusively MTV, no music, no television) and suddenly I'm an old fogey with a walking cane and a propensity for wearing pants and suspenders at the same time. I can't help but tell these young whippersnappers that when I was their age, MTV had MUSIC. Lots of it!

That's right, MTV literally was music television. My wife and I often reminisce about our favorite music videos of yesteryear. And guess where we saw them? Not CBS.

My favorite show was Dial MTV. A precursor to TRL, and frankly, the internet, daily video lovers would call in (no doubt using the then modern miracle of touch tone phones) to vote for their favorite video. How much have times changed? The record for number one videos of the day was held by Def Leppard.

Then came the seminal game show "Remote Control." I loved the show and in fairness the challenge round did revolve around music videos, but little did I know then that "Remote Control" was the harbinger of things to come.

Within a few years MTV increasingly cut into to videos to show more and more reality shows. But it was ostensibly at least, still focused on music.

Now MTV has dropped all pretense by dropping the reference to music from its title.

I can't say I blame MTV. Remember the A&E channel once meant "Arts and Entertainment." I'm pretty sure Dog the Bounty Hunter was not what they had in mind. Even the Weather Channel shows movies now.

And given the creative morass that pop music finds it in, I'm not sure that if MTV were to go back to its roots much would change.

Still when I think about my formative music years, I will always think about MTV of lore. And I'll think about my favorite videos.

Then I'll listen to my Ipod.

Does the Thought Really Count on Jobs?

One of the mantras of modern-day liberalism is that caring and good intentions can make up for actual failure. Put simply, even if what we are doing isn't working, criticism should be avoided because hey, we meant well!

This is a topic I've written of before.

Today the AP, hardly a bastion of right-wing reporting, reports that the "bi-partisan" jobs bill is unlikely to create any jobs.

Quoting from the article:

Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers— would work only on the margins.

As for the bill's effectiveness, tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.

"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."

Now does any one believe that the good intentions can compensate for billions of dollars in failure? I know the administration is on the ropes right now with jobs, and they want to show they are doing something.

But can we stop pretending that this bill is anything other than glorified PR?