You've Got Me Under Your Skin

Well, it appears that I have gotten under the skin of a certain Internet Radio Host for a Conservative Ethnic Group (lol).

Yesterday, I posted the copies of comments and replies about how poorly my candidate was treated during his phone interview earlier this week. Today, I find that said internet radio host responded to my letter (not Jeff Daiells'??) wherein he calls me a liar (huh??), suggests that I don't know details of my candidate or his campaign, and then attempts to twist reality around by stating that I owe him an apology!

Ya...I don't think so, "Larry". But, nice try.

Check out the hilarious post from him below, atrocious grammar and all, followed by my final comments to him!

Thanks for the admission

Mrs. Cole~Pearson, thank you for your commentary here and your admission of numerous idealogical points which Mr. Daiell tried very hard to avoid. As for rudeness, I was polite & Mr. Daiell called me despicable & contemptable as I recollect. Furthermore, while I'm sure you don't know this, it was Mr. Daiell who asked to be on my show and commented afterward that he was actually glad (my conclusion...I don't know if he was actually glad, happy or simply satisfied) he appeared. So, I believe it is you, he or both of you who owe me an apology for both his and your dishonesty. I suspect; however, that like the huge percentage of votes you all were counting on, I doubt that will be arriving anytime soon either. Have a nice day.

• Posted By Lauro Garza at 2010-03-11 19:22

The following are my Final Comments to Mr. Garza:

Not to split hairs, Mr. Garza, but it was you that called me on the afternoon of Thursday, February 4, 2010 and requested for Jeff Daiell to be on your show. You explained to me personally that you had attempted to contact Jeff once on your own, but were unsuccessful. You also stated to me that you would “love to have (Jeff) on your show, but (you) needed to speak with Jeff first because you won't go in blindly on an interview.”

I will agree that you and Jeff were both equally polite and engaged in common courtesies in the beginning of the show, to include Jeff stating that he was glad to be on your show to share his message with your listeners when you welcomed him. After exchanging these pleasantries, your line of questioning became more aggressive toward the break, and by the end of your show, you were completely out of line. You may call these tactics “hard-hitting”, but the reality of it, sir, is that when you personally (not politically) offend someone, it is your responsibility to rectify the problem, unless you intentionally meant to insult the person. There is certainly a difference between a “lively conversation” between two educated, passionate adults, and engaging in a contemptuous, slanderous partisan scheme of baiting and provoking.

...as far as dishonesty is concerned, Mr. Garza, perhaps it would be wise for you to take a step back and re-evaluate your own words and actions. Further, had you provided either myself or Jeff with the full-disclosure that your radio show was nothing more than a set up for you to attack Jeff Daiell and the Libertarian philosophy, we would have never have agreed to have Jeff be a guest on your show, plain and simple.

I will end this now by letting you know that I wish you well in your efforts to reintroduce Latinos to the Republican Party. I’m sure that we will all continue to do our best in fighting the good fight to ensure that the rights and freedoms of our citizens are not trampled on by Big-Government while also advocating Lower Taxes, and Fiscal Conservatism.

Respectfully,

Christie Cole-Pearson

I do suppose Lauro was right about one thing... On his website, he's a self-described "funny guy". Turns out he's right about that!

Conservative Latino Talk radio hosts Libertarian candidate for Governor Jeff Daiell

I realize I haven't posted anything in a while... It's honestly a good thing because I've been very busy lately! However, at the moment I want just want to rant about something.

Recently, and man contacted me about having my candidate for Governor of Texas, Jeff Daiell, on his Conservative Latino Talk Show entitled, "Latino Talk Texas". We, of course, were very happy to have been invited to be a guest on the radio, and the host, Lauro Garza, seemed to be as well...

Jeff Daiell was on this show on March 8, 2010, and can be heard at the following link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/conservative-latino/2010/03/08/0042-2010-conservative-latino-talk-radio
Have a listen, and see what you think.

I won't go into detail, other than by posting what Mr. Garza had to write on his blog after the hour-long interview with Jeff, followed by what Jeff Daiell and I both wrote in response to Mr. Garza.

"Libertarian Candidate for Texas Governor, Jeff Daiell, discusses Libertarianism, his history with it and his campaign for Texas governor. Mr. Daiell, not surprisingly, avoids answering questions with regard to religious principles and governance but was willing to discuss his advocacy regarding the dangers of illegal drugs.

He advocates for legalization of dangerous drugs and cessation of the effort in what he calls "Lifestyle" laws. Arguing that although he recognizes dangerous drugs "damage people" he still prefers they be legal so that people on drugs can and will seek treatment.

The discussion was lively and Mr. Daiell became annoyed with me when I pointed out the weakness in his argument that he did not wish to admit. Although he felt he won his argument, legalizing dangerous drugs, in his mind, does not, still, make them "okay" but he was glad for his appearance on my show.

Despite his assertions otherwise, Libertarianism is not the purer Republican faith nor is Republicanism a type of libertarian lite. They are fundamentally different and when confronted, crypto-libertarians and, apparently, real Libertarians attack. Among other things, he called me a "Republican". I can handle that.

- Lauro "Larry" Garza

This is Jeff's response:

Mr. Garza's inaccuracies

I'm not sure I can count them, but I will try:

I never said that using drugs was "OK", and Mr. Garza knows full well that I did not. What I said was that drug use was not a matter for the government, and that it was more important to punish murderers, child molesters, car thieves, etc., than those who smoke marijuana. Mr. Garza is entitled to put imposing his views on drugs ahead of safe streets, schools, and homes; as the father of twin daughters who were both molested by a man already convicted of child molestation, who had been given probation after that first offense because the prisons were too full of drug offenders, I put the safety of Texas's citizens, especially the children, first.

I answered his questions, to the extent he would allow me to without interrupting, so any claim that I did not is nonsense.

Rather than avoid discussion of morality and religion, I made it clear that the Republican Party had no monopoly on either, and that many Libertarians, like many Republicans, came to their respective viewpoints because of religious principles.

I never claimed that libertarianism is a form of Republicanism - indeed, I pointed out that the Republican Party is not consistent on ideology, bragging about its "big tent" approach that includes both conservatives and liberals.

For Texas, Liberty, and public safety,

Jeff Daiell

And finally, here is my response:

I must admit that I am quite surprised that you would request (multiple times) for Jeff Daiell to be on your show, only to treat him the way that you did on the air. I was simply floored that you “dribbled on” (your words) for approximately 6 minutes during the introduction of your show before you introduced your guest. One would think that as a host, especially a host with your credentials, you would know more about radio host/guest etiquette.

In the beginning of your show, Lauro, you boast about Jeff and the Libertarian Party - stating that you "respect and admire (Jeff), and want his message to be heard". Unfortunately for your listening audience, they didn’t get the opportunity to hear his message because you were too busy talking about yourself and interrupting him! As a matter of fact, you rudely spoke over my candidate on more than eighteen occasions and twisted his message many times! Although this behavior is rather typical of uber conservative folks like yourself, I expected more professionalism from you.

For whatever reason, you refused to accept the Libertarian point of view when you asked for Jeff Daiell's position on Anti-Prohibition (Is it really too much to ask that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make?), of Separation of Church and State (In order to govern a body of people effectively, religion has to be removed from laws in order to “level the playing field”, if you will, because we all do not share the same faith.), and regarding positions on Nullification (Do you really have an argument about the U.S. or the State having the right to invalidate any federal law that is deemed to be unconstitutional??).

These ideas of Common Sense may not coincide with your definition of Republicanism, and that is fine. As we Libertarians say, “Live and Let Live”, but to have the audacity to charge that my candidate “can not distinguish between arguments” when you make a claim that Lifestyle Crimes and Child Molestation go hand-in-hand is outrageous! If this was your attempt at playing the Devils Advocate, Mr. Garza, you failed.

You may not make any apologies for being a Conservative Republican (no one is asking you to), but you certainly do owe an apology to Jeff Daiell for misleading him when you asked for this interview, and also for your ill-mannered behavior during this “show”.

--
Christie Cole-Pearson
Campaign Manager
Jeff Daiell for Governor
www.jeffdaiell.com
"Because We're Texans"

Hmm. I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Miss USA 2009

I know there is a lot of controversy about the outcome of this pageant. There are quite a few people, Miss Prejean included, who believe that she was "robbed of the crown" because of her honesty and personal convictions as stated in her response to the Final Question at this years Miss USA pageant.

Miss California chose a card out of a fish bowl that had the name of a judge on it. The judge she chose was judge number 8, Perez Hilton, a Hollywood gossip blogger.

Mr. Hilton asked of Miss Prejean, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think that every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Now, before I reveal her answer, please realize that this question was cleared in advance by the Miss Universe Organization. All twelve judges submit questions, six were chosen to be used during the telecast. This was NOT "a jaded gay man with an agenda" to corner Miss California because of the passing of Prop. 8 in the state where both Miss Prejean AND Mr. Hilton reside. If any of the other girls chose judge #8's card, they would have received that very same question!

Anyway, on to her answer of: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Umm, we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, I think in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised, and that's how that I think it should be; between a man and a woman. Thank you."

Okay, most of you who read this blog know that I am a former state title holder within this very system, and also have been asked to be a judge on numerous times for local pageants. I am fully aware of how this system judges and scores it's contestants.

Delegates are required to compete in Swimsuit, Evening Gown, and Personal Interview. Based on the scoring by the preliminary judges, and Mr. Trump, the 15 semifinalists are chosen to compete in the Finals. The fifteen ladies then compete in swimsuit, and the ladies with the ten highest scores, based on their confidence and fitness, advance to the Top 10, where they all compete in Evening Wear. Then, the ladies with the 5 highest scores will advance to the Top 5. They will then compete in the On-Stage Interview portion of the competition. The ladies are asked personal questions about themselves first, and then draw cards out of a bowl and answer the Final Question from the judge they choose. Based on their individual answers, their articulation, and presentation, each judge will rank the final contestants 1-5, 1 being the winner, followed by the consecutive runner-ups.

North Carolina, the eventual winner of the pageant led the entire competition that night! She scored a 9.198 placing her first in the swimsuit competition, while Miss California scored a 9.033, placing third. During the Evening Gown Competition, Miss North Carolina again came in first with a score of 9.470. Miss California, this time placing second, scored a 9.275.

It absolutely enrages me to hear people, especially Miss California, say that she lost the crown because of her beliefs on same-sex marriage. NO MA'AM! Miss Prejean was NEVER winning the pageant to begin with, and her scores prove it! ONE JUDGE cannot make or break a contestants placement, and there were twelve that night! Not only that, but if people were all that offended by what she said, she would have placed last out of the Top 5, NOT as the winner's 1st Runner Up!

Although Carrie Prejean was honest with her answer (and YES that is very much appreciated!), she wasn't very politically correct or articulate. Miss USA is supposed to be savvy, goal-oriented and aware. The delegates who become part of the Miss Universe Organization display those characteristics in their everyday lives, both as individuals, who compete with hope of advancing their careers, personal and humanitarian goals, and as women who see to improve the lives of others.

Someone, please tell me what the heck "Opposite Marriage" is?! Surely, she meant to say TRADITIONAL marriage. Also, when someone says that "they THINK they believe" something, well, it comes across as being soft on an issue. The point also needs to be made that Americans are NOT free to choose their respective partners for marriage because only 4 states recognize same-sex marriages...which is why this is such a "hot-button" topic facing our nation right now.

Seriously, ALL she had to say is: "While I personally believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, we, as a nation are given the freedom to vote on issues that are important to us. This is not a federal issue, but rather a state issue, and I think it's best to let the people decide." BAM! She stays true to her beliefs, AND she doesn't offend the masses.

The point of my post? Her beliefs did not cost her her crown...she didn't win because she was never in the lead, and because she answered the question from the judge she chose badly. Are her 15 minutes of fame over yet?!?

Congratulations to Kristen Dalton, Miss USA 2009!

VENTING

I have never been one to doubt myself. As a matter of fact, those of you know me, know that I am a pretty confident person who makes informed decisions. I am rarely emotional (rare for a woman, I know), and while I take my gut instinct seriously, I don't heavily rely it. I suppose you could say that I use that instinct as more of the "icing on the cake" to solidify an opinion, judgment, or decision.

I am a very well-rounded person. I have been fortunate enough to travel the world and experience many cultures when I was young. I grew up in a military family, and didn't stop traveling until my Father opted for an early retirement in the mid 90's.

I (at the time) was an only child, and because of the military background of my family, a lot was expected of me. I learned what it meant to be responsible at a very early age. Yes, I was a bit spoiled, but again I mention being an only child...what else were my parents going to do with me? With the privileges I received, there were certain expectations. "To whom much is given, much is expected." I began babysitting when I was ten years old...Today, you can pretty much guarantee that I wouldn't let a ten-year old near my child unsupervised for ANY length of time! I was a Girl Scout and was Certified in CPR and First Aid, not to mention the numerous babysitting classes/courses I attended and was certified in. I had more than just a basic understanding of Right and Wrong, and was extremely trustworthy.

Since my Senior year in High School, I have had many different jobs that enabled me to discover new things about myself and aid in the confidence I have.
When I was in Co-Op, I worked for a doctor at a Pain Management Clinic. I started out as his assistant working with patients who were injured by automobile accidents, slip and falls (before they were "too common"), and later began doing all of the marketing for his practice. I dealt with pretty much all of the PI (Personal Injury) attorneys in the Greater Houston Area on a regular basis, was responsible for the expansion of his clinic, and ultimately a shift in his scope of practice that has been quite lucrative for him.
I also was a receptionist, photographer, and pre-school teacher. I volunteered in my community working with children and the elderly, and eventually developed my own program, Luggage for Kids, where I partnered with CPS (Child Protective Services) to provide gently used (or new) pieces of luggage to children who were in foster care. I developed this program when my younger sister was adopted. LFK was later adopted by the San Jacinto Girls Scouts.

After I met my husband, I "kept my resume up", but for the most part I stayed at home. After the birth of our son, I stayed at home until he was about four months old. My Aunt and her husband run another clinic (how I landed my H.S. job...), and her transcriptionist was on Maternity Leave. I was feeling a bit cagey, so I agreed to work for her part-time. My husband and I hired a private Nanny that would come to our house to care for Jackson after my Grandmother could not longer look after him. When he was around 18 months old we enrolled him in a Montessori School to aid in his socialization. I didn't particularly care for transcription work, but I did it until the other employee returned. After that, I began doing the collections for the clinics, and was quite good at what I did! I felt like I had finally found work that I enjoyed! I mostly worked with insurance companies and attorneys. Occasionally, I would have to work with the patients that had "fallen behind" in their payments. I trained at collection seminars and learned about different statutes of limitations (that I have used in "real life" as well!). I used to have to file cases in the small claims court against private-pay patients in our final attempt to collect payment. I am very happy to say that of all the cases I brought to the judge, I never lost a case! I would have to file grievances with the State Bar against attorneys that would not comply with providing information regarding case status or payment in full...one attorney came very close to losing his license to practice law! Some insurance companies, mostly for Worker's Comp, would not pay because they didn't feel that rehab for a patient that literally in some cases could not walk was necessary! So round and round we went every 45 day like clock work! They would soon tire of my relentlessness, and would eventually pay for either a portion or all of the treatment the patient received.

I went back to school for a Business Degree, and later opened my own business! Well, I was the creative force behind one, Gulf Coast Business Solutions, that was born from my work in collections. The other was Custom Crown Cases, a business that started out as a hobby but quickly turned profitable! I have been in business since 2005.

In July of 2007, I was offered a position at a pipeline engineering company that serves the oil and gas industry. I have been here for one year, and really enjoy the company and the people I work with. I get great benefits, paid time off, vacation pay, 401-k...and because I am working outside of our home, our son is able to attend (another) private Montessori School that has been phenomenal in teaching Jackson things that he most likely would not learn until the 1st grade! (Did I mention that our son is four?!) He's learning how to read and write, he knows about space, presidents, the continents, plants and what it takes for them to grow (and not just soil, water, and sunlight...I mean he knows about chlorophyll and the different parts of the plant itself!), skip counting, and way more than I could possibly begin to list here! I'm not being a braggart when I say that he is incredibly intelligent for his age, it's the truth, and being biased has very little to do with it!

So, in getting to my "Vent"...someone at my job actually had the nerve to tell me that "(I) was more astute that (she) gave (me) credit for". CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!?! She even seemed a little surprised by "intelligence". Okay, first of all....you don't say that to people....and certainly not out loud even if that is what you think; and second....did she really think that after a year of working with me...talking to me nearly every day that I am just some airhead who need to follow a trail of bread crumbs to get to places?!!? I mean really! How rude can you get?!

My husband said that perhaps she was the one who was not as astute as she thought!

That made me smile.