I want to share with you a wonderful editorial by Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a regular contributor to the National Review and the Jewish World Review:

All about ME

Here is how our baby-boom generation solves problems:

• Recently, George Bush went to Saudi Arabia to ask the ruling House of Saud to pump more oil. That request had about as much chance of success as the Democratic-led congressional effort to "sue" the Saudis in American courts for their selfish "price-gouging."

The current debate about energy in the United States has devolved into doing the same old thing — consume, don't produce and complain — while somehow expecting different results. Congress talks endlessly about the bright future of wind, solar and new fuels, while it stops us from getting through the messy present by utilizing abundant coal, shale and tar sands; nuclear power; and oil still untapped in Alaska and off our coasts.

• For the past five years, we fretted over a "housing boom" that had priced an entire generation out of the market. In response, government and lending agencies got "creative" by relaxing standards to allow shaky "first-time" buyers into the red-hot market of high-priced homes. Home-improvement TV shows proliferated on how to "flip" houses and buy "no-down-payment" properties.

When the bubble inevitably burst, cries of outrage followed about how "they" (never "we") caused a "depression" in housing. Our leaders shrieked about greedy lenders and incompetent regulators who foreclosed on us — never that the American people themselves caused much of the speculation problem, or that housing prices are finally becoming affordable again for new couples.

• Over 70 percent of the American people, and a majority of Democratic senators, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein — overwhelming support for the administration's war that rose even higher as a brilliant campaign finished off the Baathists in three weeks.

But when a messy insurgency erupted, suddenly we heard that our victory was ruined by "their stupid occupation."

• The current Social Security system is unsustainable. But the baby boomers who gave us Botox aren't about to up the retirement age and freeze their own cost-of-living hikes to allow the cash-strapped next generation a little help in paying for our out-of-control benefits.

There is a pattern in all these dilemmas. And it is not conservative-versus-liberal politics, but generational chaos. Those who came of age in the 1960s now hold the reins of power and influence — and we are starting to see why their values have worried almost everyone for nearly a half-century.

History has seen something like them before in the "blame them" years of Demosthenes' Athens, the self-indulgence of Julio-Claudian Rome, the "after me, the deluge" generation of late 18th-century France, the Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.

What are the baby boomers' collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don't drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.

There are never bad and worse choices, but only a Never Never Land of good and even-better alternatives. Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners.

When things don't go well, we always blame someone else. Why drill off Santa Barbara or Alaska when we can sue those terrible Saudis for not putting more oil platforms in their Persian Gulf? And why accept that the conduct of all wars is flawed and victory goes usually to those who persevere in making the needed adjustments when we can just keep pointing fingers at the official who disbanded the Iraqi army or sent too few troops after the invasion?

The sense of self-importance is never far away. We "earned" our generous unsustainable Social Security benefits, so why should we have to suffer by cutting them?

Sociologists have correctly diagnosed the perfect storm that created the "me" generation — sudden postwar affluence, sacrificing parents who did not wish us to suffer as they had in the Great Depression and World War II, and the rise of therapeutic education that encouraged self-indulgence.

Perhaps the greatest trademark of the 1960s cohort was self-congratulation. Baby boomers alone claimed to have brought about changes in civil rights, women's liberation and environmental awareness — as if these were not prior concerns of earlier generations.

We apparently created all of our wealth rather than having inherited our roads, schools and bountiful infrastructure from someone else. And in our self-absorption, no one accepted that our notorious appetites created more problems than our supposed "caring" solved.

Our present problems were not really caused by an unpopular president, a spendthrift Congress, the neocon bogeymen, the greedy Saudis, shifty bankers or corporate oilmen in black hats and handlebar moustaches — much less the anonymous "they."

The fault of this age, dear baby boomers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

"Shut the hell up!"

That's what Keith Olbermann said to President Bush on his MSNBC show this week.

It got me thinking. Who else should "shut the hell up?" So, I have composed a list for you tonight of who we here at Shayneblog (OK, there's really only me here) believe should "shut the hell up:"

1. Keith Olbermann
duh

2. Members of the religion of perpetual outrage
I mean, really dudes. Have you guys accomplished anything since you "invented" algebra?

3. Anyone outraged that an American soldier used a Koran for shooting practice
I'll tell you what - I'll apologize when the Muslims stop using the Bible for toilet paper

4. Anyone who really thinks Hillary was calling for Obama's assassination
Look, I'm not saying I don't think Hillary is incapable of arranging it. I just don't think that was what she meant.

5. Anyone who feels David Archuleta should have won American Idol
Booya!

5. Hank Steinbrenner
No reason. I just love watching the "anointed team" lose

6. Barack Obama
As long as his wife is campaigning for him, she's fair game

7. Dick Durbin
It's your fault I'm paying $4.15 a gallon for gas, not ExxonMobil, ya jerk

8. The State of Texas Child Services Board
Are you guys out of your freaking minds???

9. Illegal Mexican Immigrants
Go protest your own damn government to change their laws, not ours

10. John McCain
Yeah, I'm voting for him. But dude, time to lay off the global warming kool-aid.

"When you call the decent 'evil', what then do you call the truly evil?"

That is a quote from someone I consider one of the great moralists of our time, Dennis Prager. Heard on hundreds of radio stations nationwide, Prager often crosses party lines to interview members of the Democrat party leadership on his program. He is blessed with a calming, non-abrasive tone and he uses his platform not to promote simply a conservative agenda, but one of "moral clarity." The basis of his opinions are found in the Judeo-Christian belief system and while he may disagree with the Left on many points, he is exceptionally cordial and respecting of other people's positions.

However, the one ideology that he most heatedly argues is the existence of evil in this world. Raised as an orthodox Jew, Prager grew up as a Liberal and only became a conservative during the Reagan revolution. Today, he is one of the most popular lecturers and radio hosts in America.

Recently, He took great exception to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's latest tirade against President Bush. It wasn't so much as a disagreement about the President's policies (while Prager and Olbermann clearly difer on the subject, that wasn't the point of contention), but rather Olbermann's "intellectual integrity", or lack thereof.

I have, in a few cases, been taken quite aback by Olbermann's vile and hateful rants. Not so much because it's nothing I haven't heard from the Left before, but precisely from who it comes from. Aside from hosting his own talk show on MSNBC, Olbermann has emarged as the new face of the parent network, NBC and with it, it's prestige and history. By putting this clown in such a prominent position at the network, NBC no longer hides it's strong liberal bias.

But I digress...

In a 12-minute rant on his show, Olbermann railed against President Bush, our military and in general, decency. His remarks were better suited for the fringe of the DailyKos kids, than for a major cable network's newshour. In response to his outrageous commentary, Prager took Olbermann to task. What is remarkable is how beautifully precise and (maybe unnecessarily) proper Prager dissected Olbermann's "intellectual integrity."

This is a 10-minute clip from Prager's show and it should be listened to by anyone who cares for honesty and true moral clarity (Courtesy of Olbermann Watch):

Everybody's got a million questions
Everybody wants to know the score
What you went through
It's something you
Should be over now

Everybody wants to hear the secrets
That you never told a soul before
And it's not that strange
Because it wouldn't change
what happened anyhow

But you swore to yourself a long time ago
There were some things that people never needed to know
Guess there's one that you keep
That you bury so deep
No one can tear it out

And you can't talk about it
Because you're following a code of silence
You're never gonna to lose the anger
You just deal with it a different way

And you can't talk about it
And isn't that a kind of madness
To be living by a code of silence
When you've really got a lot to say

You don't want to lose a friendship
There's nothing that you have to hide
And a little dirt
Couldn't hurt no one anyway

And you still have a rage inside you
That you carry with a certain pride
In the only part of the broken heart
That you could ever save

But you've been through it once
You know how it ends
You don't see the point
Of going through it again
And this ain't the place
And this ain't the time
And neither's any other day

So you can't talk about it
Because you're following a code of silence
You're never gonna to lose the anger
You just deal with it a different way

So you can't talk about it
And isn't that a kind of madness
To be living by a code of silence
When you've really got a lot to say

I know you well enough to tell you've got your reasons
That's not the kind of code you're inclined to break
Some things unknown are best left alone forever
And if a vow is what it takes
Haven't you paid for your mistakes

After the moment passes
And the impulse disappears
You can still hold back
Because you don't crack very easily

It's a time honored resolution
Because the danger is always near
It's with you now
But that ain't how it was supposed to be

And it's hard to believe after all these years
That it still gives you pain and it still brings tears
And you feel like a fool
Because in spite of your rules
You've got a memory

But you can't talk about it
Because you're following a code of silence
You're never gonna to lose the anger
You just deal with it a different way

But you can't talk about it
And isn't that a kind of madness
To be living by a code of silence
When you've really got a lot to say

I just commented on an editorial written by Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times that I wanted to share with you. His piece, Bush and his use of "Appeasement," was written in regard to the President's remarks at the 60th anniversary celebration of the State of Israel.

During his speech, President Bush said:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

In response to these remarks, Ramsey makes the following point:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938. The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless--and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don't appease Hitlers.

But who else is a Hitler? If you paste that label on somebody it means they are cast out. You can't talk to them any more. And it has gotten pasted on quite a few national leaders over the years: Milosevic, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, et. al. In particular, to apply that label to the elected leaders of the Palestinians is to say that you aren't going to listen to their claims to a homeland. I think they do have a claim. So do the Israelis. In order to get anywhere, each side has to listen to the other. To continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and “appeasement,” is to try to prolong the stalemate.

Of course, most of the comments written by readers of this article were not surprising. At the time of my reading, every single comment was in disbelief that a serious journalist of a major American newspaper could make a claim that Adolf Hitler's demands in 1938 were reasonable. The comments ranged from total shock that the Times would employ such an idiot to pleas for Mr. Ramsey to seek psychiatric care.

At one point, Ramsey himself tried to clarify his opinion. But even then, he had already open the floodgates and there really was no turning back.

However, after reading his commentary a second time, I concluded that while he deserves derision for trying to even broach the possibility that Hitler was "reasonable," his point missed the mark because his entire premise was incorrect.

Therefore, I wrote the following and posted it on the Seattle Times website (as of this writing, they have yet to to publish the comments):

"The main problem with your editorial is that you assume Ahmadinejad and others like him are dissimilar to Hitler. But are they really, Bruce?

Hamas, Iran and other enemies of Israel (i.e. the Jews and the West) want the same things that Hitler wanted. Simply because Hitler was able to accomplish many of his goals and the others have not yet does not mean they aren't like him.

Your premise fails because while it may not have been "outrageous" at the time, it was only not considered unreasonable by those who - like today -choose to hide their heads in the sand and ignore the realities on the ground.

I do understand the point you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, it shows that you have both a naive, uneducated sense of history and an extremely pacifistic idea of life - something most Americans clearly, and rightfully, reject."

It simply amazes me - although I guess it shouldn't - that Barack Obama found the President's remarks "divisive." The truth is, the only way it can be construed as divisive is if Senator Obama felt that the President was speaking out against him. If that is was the Senator meant, then I suggest he find another line of work. President Bush's comments were spot on and direct. Only someone who readily endorses a strategy of appeasement would be insulted by them.

Of course, Obama did say he would meet without preconditions with the head of Iran, and any other hostile regime. Is Obama saying that the President is wrong? Or is he just upset that the President showed the country exactly who Senator Obama is?

Things I know for sure

Jimmy Carter is still the worst person in America.

Ehud Olmert is still the Prime Minister of Israel (though thankfully, not for long).

The View is still the worst show on television (but Elisabeth Hasselback rocks).

Hillary Clinton still has no chance to beat Barack Obama.

When the time comes, most people will not vote for Obama in the general election.

Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann still have jobs they don't deserve.

No team can win a World Series with A-Rod in their lineup.

Mark Cuban made a mistake in letting Avery Johnson go.

The honeymoon is over for the Dallas Stars.

Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell are the best columnists in the business.

Gas prices will average over $5 a gallon within a year.

No matter who wins the election, gas prices will continue to rise.

Iran will have the bomb.

Somewhere, a prominent Democrat will blame George Bush for the disaster in Myanmar.

More illegal immigrants will demand more rights.

More Democrats will give it to them, over the objection of legal immigrants.

Having to cut down your trips to the casino resort to 4 times a year from 6 isn't really making the ultimate sacrifice.

Michelle Obama makes me cringes - and her race has nothing to do with it.

Joy Behar gives me the same reaction.

So does Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr.

Why hasn't Al Gore received more blame for the food shortages that are caused by ethanol production?

Now that April was the 11th coldest in 125 years, can we finally agree that there is no man-made global warming?

Since we only discovered the ozone layer in the last few decades, how do we know there wasn't always a hole at the North Pole?

Did CBS doctor the picture, or are there really penguins in the North Pole?

You will never convince a trufer (someone who believes 9/11 was an inside job) that he's crazy. So don't even bother. Just walk away from him. If you linger to close for to long, you may catch what he has.

To end this on a more enjoyable note, enjoy this picture (courtesy of Pixdaus:)

I'm tired. I'm tired of politics, I'm tired of parenting, I'm tired of television, I'm tired of the media and I'm tired of the stupidity that is so prevalent in society. I'm tired of the "me" generation, I'm tired of trial lawyers, I'm tired of race-baiters and I'm tired of environmentalism. I'm tired of whiny adults who feel like they are entitled to whatever they fancy and I'm tired of selfish children who feel like they own the world.

I'm tired of Rush Limbaugh and I'm tired of Keith Olbermann. I'm tired of Black Afro-centric theology and I'm tired of liberal Jews. I'm tired of being poor and I'm tired of being lonely. I'm tired of watching my favorite sports teams lose and I'm tired of the New York Yankees. I'm tired of Chef Ramsey and I'm tired of Paula Abdul.

Basically, I'm just sick of all of it.

Part of me wishes I were a liberal Democrat so that I could blame everything of George Bush. Part of me wishes I were a European, so I could hate the Jews with impunity. A big part of my wishes that the most pain I ever felt was a paper cut and an even bigger part of me wishes I had no interest in companionship.

I'm just so damn tired.