In today’s financial turmoil, many sectors of our economy are hurting. Even some recession-proof industries like prostitution are suffering a downturn. The term “bailout” has been— hopefully not forever— seared into our national consciousness and woven into our modern vernacular. Without bailouts, it would appear that some industries might even go the way of the “horse and buggy” (like print media, for example, if failing newspapers around the country are any indication).

However, not all is doom and gloom. Wal-Mart, lauded by the right and reviled by the left, continues to do well. Micky D’s is also hanging in there. Bakeries continue to bake bread (although buying a loaf may someday require a wheelbarrow full of bank notes if the Fed keeps madly creating fiat money en mass).

Thanks to one brave, courageous “visionary”, I suspect another industry has been miraculous saved from slumping sales and the prospect of failure. I’m referring to the Iraqi journalist and one lucky post-Saddam patriot, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who, perhaps, single-handedly has saved the shoe-maker industry. And maybe, just maybe, the entire global economy.

What, at first, appeared to be an isolated incident of freedom of expression by one sole (pun intended) privileged Iraqi citizen who, ironically, was afforded such freedom by the very guy— his arch enemy (again, pun intended) — who he was aiming his shoe missiles at— this very same practice of “projectile dissent” has begun to catch on big time. Reports are coming in daily now from around the world of various protestors taking up Mr. Al-Zeidi’s mantle, while taking off their own shoes to fling at some perceived oppressor or tyrant or government official somewhere or another. The World Court in The Hague has agreed to review a case where the mayor of Rotterdam is alleging he was recently the victim of a hate crime since the dissident Dutchman who assailed him had used wooden shoes, essentially, weaponized footwear.

So, it would seem, we are witnessing a planetary “booty call”, as it were.

It’s just a matter of time before malcontents (read: loony leftists) in this country will adopt this powerfully symbolic and visceral expression of dissent.  In fact, some anti-Prop 8 activists have already employed this tactic but with little impact thus far due to the use of soft-leather loafers and the fact that most of them throw like girls (except, notably, one bull dike southpaw the New York Mets are taking a look at).

This world-wide shoe mania is the very economic stimulus Obama has been looking for and can only bode well for shoe manufactures who will be rushing to meet the new demand for shoes as millions around the globe begin hurling footwear willy-nilly whenever they feel alienated or just pissed off and feel like pitching a hissy fit. Already shoe companies are anticipating huge surges in the demand for stiletto heels and steel-toed work books, in particular. Word on the street has it that Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber, is working from within the confines of the Big House on a deal to set up his own shoe-wear company whose slogan is reported to be “Get More Bang From Your Bucks©”.

This revival of the shoe industry will have residual effects as well. It is likely to be a boon to landfill contractors who will have to find additional room for billions of metric tons of discarded shoes, boots and sandals. Cattle ranchers and leather tanneries will no doubt benefit. Maybe even podiatrists if the well-heeled— damn those puns! — keep switching shoes with wild and reckless abandon.

Furthermore, it’s rumored that Fisher-Price® is about to unveil a new game, Shoe Toss™, targeted for the pre-school set where toddlers can score points by throwing little soft rubber shoes at each other. This must be seen as one of those “investments” in our future that Obama is always talking about, producing an entire new generation of shoe-chuckers, and guaranteeing that our economy will continue to be stimulated into prosperity for decades to come.

Thank Allah for one brave and faithful servant and small miracles.

To say that Governor Hot Rod Blago has given the term ‘public servant’ a bad name might be the understatement of the decade. This drama will, no doubt, continue to play out in the weeks ahead. Now if only president-elect Obama would show some real righteous indignation and outrage instead of merely a sober resignation with a few obligatory expressions of sadness thrown in for good measure. Is he sad for the people of Illinois or for his crony who got busted and could still implicate him in unsavory, if not illegal, association?

This whole sordid business of corruption in government brought to mind a friendly argument I had with a good friend who is hopelessly liberal in outlook. At a party I was discussing politics with someone and advanced the case that term limits for people who serve—I use the word advisedly—in Congress might be a good idea. My friend overheard and weighed in with a scornful, “I thing that’s a terrible idea”. I took the challenge and the debate was on.

You need to understand something about my friend. While he might deny it, he’s one of those who think that it is government that makes our country great. Not the people. Not our traditions. Not evil big corporations. And certainly not the military. No, it’s government that makes America great. And the bigger and more centralized, the better. I suspect he also believes that our inalienable rights devolve from Government rather than some Transcendental Source. Our Founding Fathers, in keeping with the Judeo-Christian traditions of Western Civilization, identified such a Source or Ground of Being as “the Creator”. Again—let’s call him Wilbur—Wilbur might deny this. But I know his secular heart.

My argument’s main thrust was this: the longer people serve in government, the less likely they are to continue to faithfully serve the public which elected them. The longer their tenure, the more likely they are to be corrupted by power. The more vulnerable they remain to relentless outside influences such as evil lobbyists. It’s funny how Democrats decry lobbyists and “special interests” as demons which always seem to possess Republicans exclusively while they, the Dems, remain immune. Of course, that’s absurd.

In the formative years of our Republic, the attitude about serving one’s country was more noble and modest than it is today. The yeoman farmer who went to Washington to represent the people of his state or district did not look upon this as a career move. The idea was that, at considerable personal expense and sacrifice, one would choose to serve his country for a term or two, after which the politician would hang up his hat and return to his previous life. There would always be newcomers volunteering to fill the vacancies and refurbish the chambers of Congress.

Today aspiring politicians pay exorbitant amounts of money to procure a job which doesn’t necessarily pay all that well compared to jobs in the private sector. No wonder they never want to resign. They need all the bang for the buck they can get in order to retire their campaign debt. Of course, it turns out that these folks sooner or later discover that there are other ways to accrue wealth in Washington besides drawing their regular paycheck. That’s the problem.

Wilbur’s argument consisted in the assertion that the longer people serve in government, the more experience they accumulate and the more expertise they demonstrate. It would be a shame, for example, to force somebody like Joe Biden—who Wibur voted for in the primary election—out of the Senate because we the people would then be deprived of his amazing wisdom and judgment in matters of foreign policy. Indeed, during the campaign, Joe Biden’s tenure and experience were often touted as compelling credentials that made him the perfect choice as the inexperienced Obama’s running mate. It didn’t seem to matter that Joe regularly took his traveling clown show on the road saying really goofy things. It didn’t matter that he was expansively liberal with the “facts” in the debate with Sarah Palin. And it didn’t seem to matter that, in the past, Joe had been simply wrong on so many foreign policy issues. The only thing that mattered was that he’d been in the Senate for more than three decades—that and the observation that he rode commuter trains a lot.

I will acknowledge that, even without term limits, some congressmen and senators have their Washington careers curtailed by their constituents back home. Throw the bums out, yeah. Yet there are certain districts that become so enamored with their representative, they would never dream of voting him or her out the door. I’m convinced that if that Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, were immortal, the voters of Massachusetts would keep sending him back to Capitol Hill right up until the Universe reverted to a singularity a few billion years or so from now.

I asked Wilbur, if term limits were so bad, then why is our president subjected to them? His answer amounted to, “Well, that’s different”.

Time is both linear and cyclical. A certain amount of time is required for freshmen lawmakers to learn the ropes. And with the passage of time, I’m sure many committee members become more knowledgeable about some special issue or another. But, in nature, we also have the seasons. In the spirit of Ecclesiastes, there’s a time to serve and a time to not serve (any longer). Spring cleaning is more than a metaphor. There’s just something healthy about clearing out the cobwebs and discarding things that have outlived their usefulness.

I realize that my vision is hopelessly naïve, at least while Democrats are running the show. They will always be more committed to holding their political power in perpetuity than serving the greater good. They do believe in service. But they serve the Party and its handmaiden, Big Government, first and foremost. And the longer, the better.

As a consolation prize, perhaps Barry O has settled for a lesser place in the pantheon of the gods. Lately I’ve been thinking more of Obama as a reincarnated Mussolini. Or, at least, one who channels El Duce, the man who made the trains run on time— something the US federal bureaucracy, even under Obama, may not be able to accomplish.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, “fascism” is defined as “a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition, the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control”.

To anybody, excluding the typically dimwitted Obamaphile, who is remotely aware of what’s going on in our country these days, this should sound familiar. Rigid one-party dictatorship? Witness the new axis of evil (or, if you prefer, Unholy Trinity): Obama-Pelosi-Reid. Forcible suppression of the opposition? Can you say “Fairness Doctrine”? Or “Card Check”? Or “ACORN”? Not to mention the efforts of the propaganda arm (insert “mainstream media”) of the ruling elite to control the State news. And then there’s the unending crusade by academics— loyal Party members all— to stifle dissent. Private corporations strictly controlled by centralized government control? The politicos have already become bankers and mortgage lenders. Wait until Detroit starts manufacturing cars and trucks designed by the likes of Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer.

It’s no secret that, historically, the “progressives” in the United States were enamored with the loveable dictator of Italy back in the thirties (not unlike their infatuation for colorful characters like Hugo Chavez these days). It was only after Mussolini allied himself with the unsavory Hitler that these progressives of that day began to lose their enthusiasm for Benny M, that benevolent dictator.

So, unless Barack Hussein Obama insanely forms an alliance with, say, Al-Qaeda (or perhaps with an even more evil adversary, say, the Republicans), he’s likely to be worshipped and adored by “the people” who placed all their hope in him as he endeavors to create the American 21^st century version of fascist Italy. All hail to the Chief.

Even if El Barry were to do something monumentally stupid and his minions finally awoke to his fallibility, he’s not likely to suffer the fate of Mussolini who was strung up in the public square by his toes. Such a fate for Barry would be uncomfortably akin to lynching the first black president.

We do know that Barack Obama has stated repeatedly that he intended to appoint imposing personalities with strong opinions, including those whose views disagreed with his own. He is said to prefer a dynamic cadre of rival advisors (a la Abraham Lincoln) to a monolith of sycophants. To that end, Obama has even pledged to appoint Republicans to his administration.

When president-elect Obama introduced his national security team— seasoned Clinton-era personalities and one incumbent Republican, Bob Gates— earlier this week, there was one man conspicuously absent from the press conference. To have introduced this particular gentleman as his Special Counselor to the President (with Cabinet standing) would have stunned friends and foes alike. Later in the day there were already rumors circulating that this mysterious appointee had missed the ceremony due to heart palpitations.

Late that night I received a mysterious phone call from someone identifying himself only as Deep Anal Orifice whose voice had been modulated. Sounding not unlike Darth Vader, the caller informed me that a certain Richard Cheney had been named as Mr. Obama’s Special Counselor to the President. In stunned disbelief I managed to ask, “Do you mean to say Obama picked Dick Cheney?” I was told, yes, that was indeed the case. The garbled voice on the other end hastened to add that people in the Obama camp were being instructed to exclusively refer to this particular appointee as Richard Cheney in hopes that the vast number of Obama supporters, woefully uninformed, would never make the connection.

“But why”, I persisted, “would Obama ever want a Dick Cheney in his Cabinet?” The caller chastened, “Ah ah, that’s Richard Cheney, remember?” Mr. Orifice went on to explain that Barry’s plan was to listen earnestly to any advice Dick Cheney had to offer and then, automatically, do the exact opposite. Governance by reverse psychology. As inexperienced, as out of his depth as the young Man-Child is, this cockamamie scheme might just work.