Election returns

"Spin" can be a funny thing. What people say and what they do often are misaligned. The mouth may say "I'm not afraid" of that large, ferocious dog chained in a neighbor's front yard, but the feet nevertheless tend to use a path at least one foot beyond that chain's length.

Good sense, after all, often outweighs good spin.

We'll see if that applies to the post-election weeks and months ahead. On a number of fronts.

That liberals dismiss the ideological swings of 20-plus points from last fall's presidential election in Tuesday's Virginia and New Jersey governor races isn't all that surprising.

And I hold out little hope (OK, none at all) that Democrat Party leaders will reverse course on the reprehensible direction they're taking this country.

But there are a lot of Democrats in both houses of Congress who face elections next year and know they aren't as "bullet-proof" as Nancy Pelosi is in her ultra-liberal San Francisco district.

I assume a good number of those "blue-dog" Democrats would like to keep their jobs and, at the very least, are calculating the length of that large, ferocious dog's chain.

Good sense would dictate doing so.

Similar calculations should be going on across the aisle, though. At least at the highest levels of the GOP.

Just as Ronald Reagan "took back" the Republican Party for conservatives almost 30 years ago, those who hold his tenants, as well as The Constitution, sacred are moving in that direction again.

Yes, liberals spin this as right-wing extremism and charge that there's no room for moderate thought in the Republican Party.

Well, first of all, look at the pictures and video of this summer's tea parties and then the 9/12 march on Washington.

Extremists? More like a mix of veterans, retirees, young parents, everyday middle class folks who had never been part of any kind of political activism but were simply fed up with Washington's unprecedented power grab and gross mismanagement.

And moderate thought? Since when is supporting and voting for liberal idealism "moderate"?

It strikes me that in this decade, particularly, we hear all about how conservatives need to "move more to the center" and be more "big-tent" inclusive and so forth, yet I haven't heard once how Democrats should do anything similar.

My position is that Republicans have, and that precisely has been their problem.

Tuesday's other election that brought national attention, the House race in New York's very moderate 23rd District, bears that out.

The GOP saw fit to push a liberal "Republican" in Dede Scozzafava. The backlash from conservatives, already fed up with RINOs such Arlen Specter (before he jumped parties), Olympia Snowe, et al, resulted in the rapid ascent of a little-known conservative, Doug Hoffman, as a third-party candidate.

While Hoffman's support skyrocketed in the weeks leading up to the election, Scozzafava's dropped lower than whale dung, and she dropped out of the race (and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, by the way).

Regardless of Owens' four-point win, a message was sent to the GOP hierarchy.

Question is, are they also now measuring chains?

Their future, like that of those "blue-dog" Democrats, almost certainly depends on it.

Just wondering

From the Just Wondering File:

Seems that with each bit of bad economic news we've seen the past six months, our media throws the word "unexpected" into its headlines or, at least, fairly high in the story.

On what planet do these editors/writers reside?

Here's an idea. Try reporting the news every day as it is, as opposed to what will make Barack Obama look best, and you'll be less surprised that we're circling the drain faster every day.

Oh, and please stop quoting Joe Biden. The man is a certifiable loon and makes you look worse than usual when you take him seriously.

*****

Along those same lines, it seems just about every story recently that has to do with unemployment, we're cheering the fact that we've lost 10,000 or 19,000 fewer jobs than we did in the last reporting period.

See? We're coming out of the recession!

Wonder if it will ever dawn on people that with millions already out of a job, there are fewer and fewer workers to lose theirs.

Follow me here. You have 100 employees. You have to cut 20 percent of them to stay in business, which leaves you with 80. A little while later, you have to lay off 20 percent more to remain viable. This time, though, you only have to send 16 employees packing. Yay! Right? Next time, it's only 12 or 13. Nirvana! Right?

Or are you figuring out yet that you're still running out of employees and your business is headed quickly for the shitter?

*****

As expected, a number of Libs blamed the International Olympic Committee's decision last week on George Bush.

Not surprising, since few liberals can string five words together without blaming Bush for something.

A question, though: If Bush, who hasn't been president for nine months, prevented Chicago from getting the bid, how was it Chicago became a finalist while he was in the White House?

*****

If the definition of insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, when are we going to slap white jackets on voters in the most destitute cities in America for repeatedly putting Liberals in charge?

Are you listening, Detroit?

*****

Wonder why Congress types don't have time to read the health care reform bill?

*****

Help, help, my liberal friends! I keep hearing from you that "media bias" doesn't exist. Please 'splain to me then why an alleged news organization like CNN would feel the need to "fact check" a comedy skit about Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live.

Try as I might, I just can't seem to remember similar attempts to get to the "truth" after the show's lampoons of George Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.

*****

All those states that readily slurped up all those millions of federal stimulus dollars earlier this year for things like education and extended umemployment benefits are now facing the hard reality that with those stimulus dollars came a mandate to replace them with their own in next year's budget.

Many, if not most, of those states already were facing multi-million dollar deficits.

Guess what? More mandates will be coming down the pike with health care reform and Cap & Trade, just to name two.

Just wondering. Whatcha gonna do?

What will it take?

I don't know anyone who works at the Fountain Place tower in downtown Dallas. Least I don't think I do. Thankfully, I'm not sitting here today sifting through a long list of names of those killed by a terrorist's bomb this week, looking for ones I know.

But I will be soon. So will you.

The 9/11 Commission came to the correct conclusion years ago that terrorists, namely Al Qaeda, had been at war with us for some time but that we simply had not been at war with them.

They still are. But are we?

Oh, we're aware. To be sure, the FBI and CIA are.

I've lost count of the number of plots uncovered and squelched over the last eight years. But there have been six disrupted very recently. One in Philadelphia. Another in New York. One in Springfield, Ill. One in Denver. One in Quantico, Va.

And one right here in Dallas.

I just don't think we, as in you and me, are all that concerned. Why this doesn't scare the living crap out of everybody is mind-boggling.

This would-be Dallas bomber wasn't just a talker. He wasn't trying to hatch a plan.

He actually parked a truck loaded full of explosives in the Fountain Place building's underground parking garage, then moved to a secure location and attempted to detonate the bomb.

Fortunately, his bomb was a fake, provided to him by undercover FBI agents posing as an Al Qaeda cell.

"Scary" and "unnerving" are terms I've seen and heard used by people today.

Sorry, but I have to imagine that if that had happened several blocks away, in my building, I'd be a bit more than "unnerved."

No, the bomb didn't go off. No, there aren't several hundred funerals in the planning stages this weekend. So why the fuss, right?

How many more Hosam Maher Husein Smadis are there?

This guy was an illegal alien living down in tiny Italy, Texas. He was arrested 13 days before his attempt at "jihad" (aka mass murder) for having no driver's license and no insurance, yet was released the same day.

Did anyone ask if he was here legally? Did anyone check?

Probably not, because we certainly don't want to infringe on anyone's imagined "rights" by enforcing our laws.

Will the question be asked how he arrived in the U.S. two years ago? It wouldn't surprise me if he crossed the Mexican border.

Next to stories Friday about Smadi was one detailing our government's plan to cut border control agents along the Mexican border despite the fact that in the last year, agents have intercepted 530 aliens from "special interest" countries (those identified as countries that pose a terrorist threat), including three persons linked directly to terrorism.

You see, despite what far too many people want to think and say, illegals are not solely a bunch of harmless little fuzzy creatures simply seeking a better life.

And given the percentage of our border that remains unsecured, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, I'd say the probability that many, many more Smadis have snuck through is rather high.

And if that's so?

An IRA terrorist once told a British official, "I only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every day."

We got lucky here this week, as did folks in five other cities. But what about tomorrow? Next week?

A friend asked me the other day, "What do you suggest we do? Live in paranoid fear? Never leave our houses?"

Not at all.

But a large number of people need to wake up to reality. This world is teeming with fanatics who want nothing more than to kill us. All of us. Conservatives and liberals. Black and white. Rich and poor.

And we seem hell-bent on making the job far easier than it should be, whether by supporting policies that make no sense or simply refusing to give a damn.

Six months of Obama

I stumbled upon this middle of last week and have read it several times. Much of the stuff cited has become fairly common knowledge (at least to those who "listen" outside the mainstream media, which rarely, if ever, talks about any of it); some of the other facts, figures, etc., I've checked.

Like I said, much of this has been said and/or reported over the last six months. Strung all together like this, though, provokes a fair amount of amazement at what's transpired since January.

Bob Oster is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution and was CFO of Oracle when it went public, then served as CFO of Syntex. He holds a PhD in economics from Berkeley. One of his CEO friends wrote this:

My 6-Month Evaluation of the Obama Presidency

In November 2008, I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy and what it might mean to America. I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.) Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate "background check" — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.

As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.

I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to be quintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.” Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shakedown credentials and extraordinary speaking ability. All of this should have been clear, had we simply done serious background checks.

The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:

1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.

2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.

3. He sat for nearly two decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, an angry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.

4. His first autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors.)

If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never A) held a job in the private sector, B) managed a payroll, C) led a turnaround or D) held any sort of executive position. But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008.

After six months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinching themselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America. In his second (!) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

And, project we did! Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu, Jakarta, Mombasa, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States. In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?). For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, has spent $750,000 keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder (if they supported Obama’s putative CV), why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics?

My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There, I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice. But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record to evaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.

At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s

1. Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider second- and third-order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)

2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America. Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America, but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history. This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.

At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?

For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first six months.

Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:

1. A $787 billion “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis from becoming catastrophe”).

2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”.

3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry.

4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession.

5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, <10% of stimulus yet spent).

6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9 billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid).

7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries.

8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies.

9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights).

10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars”, creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!

11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?).

12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite an apparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament.

13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote in the House).

14. The high-pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 trillion takeover of health care.

15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.

16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.

17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).

18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized health care (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much).

19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” health care will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.

20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”.

21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.

22. Allocating $4 billion of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.

23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” and threats to take away Second Amendment rights (see Eric Holder), etc.

24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the White House under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.

Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — which can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointment of czars.

In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?). Meanwhile, in California, as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America”, job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25 billion budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs.

But, is bad economic news bad for Obama? Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.

Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the six-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula. Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author, said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he has done since arriving in South Chicago.”

Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:

1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the most effective way to market revolution).

2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.

3. Start class warfare. Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”

4. Use crises to create fear.

5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.

6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.

7. Show supreme self-confidence.

8. Make communication skills your key weapon.

9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans ("Of the Common Welfare" [Nazi takeover of Germany], "Bread and Peace" [Bolshevik Revolution]). In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that "Change" and "The Audacity of Hope" will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.

10. Use deception. "In war, the end justifies almost any means."

11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.

As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.

As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light — Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “green jobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy. But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes.

So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view. Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union for government to be forever split between the parties.

A goodbye

"Don't assume."

Isn't that what we were always told, be it by teachers, parents, bosses ... even friends? I know I heard it a bajillion times. Even on a number of occasions from a science teacher in high school, who spelled out the "ASS-U-ME" reasoning on the blackboard, which was cutting-edge, grab-their-attention stuff back then.

Well, I assumed. Quite a few in my group of friends did. No one was technically made an ass of in this case. No, this time, our assumptions ... MY assumption, anyway ... simply left a hole that will never be filled.

I'm not sure of our numbers. I've described our group over the years from a half-dozen to 20 or so. For me, it started with a couple of the guys I met back in the early 1990s, then grew to encompass several people they were close to and so on. A number of others joined over the years, although that's hardly a good description. I guess we "absorbed" them more than anything. Friendship came as natural as breathing to this bunch.

There was an inner circle of sorts, a number who had known one another since childhood, who shared a closeness on a little bit higher level. But make no mistake, we were all close. Several of us shared a roof at one time or another. We went on vacations together. We celebrated (boy, did we) birthdays, holidays, triumphs and even a falling or two.

More than anything, we celebrated friendship on a level I've known no other time in life.

There were fairly frequent parties when just about all of us were present. There were events, such as the Margarita Ball. And in between, we always knew that on just about any given night, we could walk into our little neighborhood bar and find one, two or 10 of the others.

I guess that made it easy to assume.

As time is wont to do, our gatherings slowly decreased in frequency. There was marriage or serious relationships, kids even. Some moved to the other side of town, one out of the country. Some just got busy with life, you could say.

We'd still see each other, bump into one or two at our bar or talk once in a while. There were a handful of get-togethers, when our hair again came down, we laughed tears at the memories, then shook hands or embraced, bidding farewell til the next time.

And we went on assuming there'd always be a next time.

Of course, there was. For all but one of us.

Most of the group just spent the better part of a week together. But this gathering culminated yesterday in our saying a final goodbye to one of the group, one of the inner-circle.

One of us.

A few had seen her the week before. For some, it had been much longer, and I know in my case, that made everything seem a little more difficult.

We laughed a lot in those seven days. Cried a lot, too. Kicked ourselves a little or a lot for our assumption that there'd always be a next time.

Some of us made a pact. Our next time needs to be sooner than later. The next time we all see each other again, we said a number of times in a number of different ways, can't again be for this reason.

I want to believe that's going to be the case, that we'll follow through and make the relatively little time and effort it will take.

Cause I assumed the last time we all gathered, several months ago, that when I said goodbye to Dina early that evening (and gave her grief for cutting out early), it wouldn't be the last time. I assumed I wouldn't find myself questioning why, in an entire summer, I hadn't taken the time or we hadn't taken the time ... or something.

I don't want to make that mistake again. I don't want any of us to.

Auto vs. health insurance

One of the many problems conservatives have with the health care bill being debated is the government mandate that everyone have insurance.

Conservatives argue, rightly so, that is beyond government's intended reach.

So liberals came up with a "gotcha" question on this point. I've heard it a number of times, including last night at Joe Barton's town hall meeting.

I'm frankly surprised the answer apparently hasn't occurred to anyone who I've heard argue the point.

The question: "Since conservatives are so in favor of government-mandates for auto insurance, why do they have a problem with mandated health coverage?"

It's apples and oranges, people.

I understand 48 states have mandated auto insurance of some type. I'm not sure who requires what. But here in Texas, you must carry liability insurance, which covers damage to other people's property if you're at fault in an accident.

And no, I don't have a problem with that. You drive your car into the back of mine, you better have a way to pay for the damage.

Insuring your own personal health is a different matter entirely.

Yes to Michael Vick

Let's get this right up front. I'm no fan of Michael Vick. Never was, in fact.

While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.

His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.

But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?

Yes he should.

I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.

Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.

He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.

He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.

I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.

To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?

In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.

But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.

I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.

Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.

So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?

Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.

And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.

My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.

Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.

But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.

But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.