My thirst for well-balanced knowledge is endless. I am fairly certain yours is as well.

This particular request from me to you, fine group of 3-4 readers, is that you share your bookmark of web links, Amazon wishlists, must-read essays, articles and political cartoons with with me.

The 2008 presidential election is the most exciting, frustrating (misdirections galore!) and important of my generation. I am embedded in this White House race more so than I have in any other, and many fellow voters across the nation are in the same boat. My goal in reading and understanding the distinctions between the competiting candidates and their parties, is to know exactly where they stand on the various issues. This particular election seems to have more misdirections about personalities and low-blow smears for one glaring reason — it’s the election of the present. We Americans are in the process of choosing between the candidates before us, and realize that even a slight variation in their positions may change our vote.

So, in that respect, I’d like to know what everyone reads. I’ll list places I visit and try to be as specific as possible. Transparency is vital — I hold that high in my expectations list for my elected officials as well! But do your part — help a yearning mind out! — and give me particular columnists, magazines, newspapers, TV shows and whatever you find helpful in your decision-making moving forward to election day.

Your assistance is appreciated, and will be rewarded — intrinsically! Ok, maybe there’s a Reese’s cup (the tiny one… budget is tight these days!) in there for you.

Don’t leave me and your fellow Americans in the dark — be kind, share your resources.

A Few Of My Recommended Web Links

• Real Clear Politics
• Mark Halperin (TIME Magazine)
• Stuart Rothenberg (Rothenberg Report)
• Eugene Robinson (Washington Post)
• Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal)
• Chuck Todd (MSNBC)
• The New York Times
• National Journal

Do not direct your anger at the messengers, who many think are in charge in Iraq because they are given the impossible task of articulating the progress — or lack thereof — of the war in Iraq. Granted, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker are calling many shots in Iraq. But, by-in-large, the overall decision-making comes from the man upstairs — of the White House, anyway — President George W. Bush.

The W. administration has Petraeus and Crocker stepping to the beat handed down from above. The reports given this week were merely rehashes of what the White House public relations department conjured up as to the best “spin words” to translate the “realities” (or fantasies) of war for public consumption.

(Think of this in terms of parents spelling out words as they argue back-and-forth, under the assumption their kid cannot spell and therefore cannot comprehend what they are really talking about.)

Far be it for W. to need to worry even further about Americans falling into a deep state of panic if they found out their beloved soldiers were fighting in a war that apparently cannot be won.

Does anyone know what would constitute an American “win” in Iraq? Unless I am mistaken, the “win” would consist of assisting the Iraqi people in establishing their own democracy with police and soldiers to protect and defend themselves. That would constitute the U.S. as official “liberators” (W.’s favorite word) of the Iraqi people and a victory parade would follow. Come to think of it, weren’t the Iraqi people supposed to be giving out roses and applauding all of the American soldiers’ valiant, hard-fought efforts, as Iraq was liberated from Hussein’s tyrannic rule? (Hear that one before, have you? Still applies.)

In both the long- and short-term viewpoints, the war in Iraq is doing more harm to Americans than W. and his administration will admit. Casualties are rising not only of our own American troops, but also citizens of Iraq. Their family members — those ones declining to hand American troops roses and smile everyday — will inevitably hold a grudge. Some will bury the hatred deep, taking it with them to their grave. Others will wear their hatred on their sleeve, seeking revenge for U.S. occupation.

When W. and the gang tell you the troops will be reduced “soon,” what they mean is that, figuring in the surge, essentially the numbers will be “less increased” than they really want.”

Here’s The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson on the issue:

Here’s something solid: Early last year, before the surge, there were 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. In November, when Americans choose the next president, there are likely to be 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The White House will blow a lot of smoke about how there’s a “pause in the drawdown” or some such nonsense. There’s no troop reduction; there’s been an increase.

No one should be surprised that Petraeus and Crocker asked our elected representatives for more time. That’s what George Bush always wanted, and he wasn’t about to be deterred by anything so inconsequential as the clearly expressed will of the American people. As Dick Cheney said of anti-war opinion polls: “So?”

W. does not care what Americans think. His veep told us straightforward, without any frosting or creme filling.

If W. cared what we thought, he would have resigned when his approval rating dropped to the low 30s. He would be back in Texas, on his ranch, obsessing about baseball, fishing and book deals. Instead, W. is in his ranch in Texas obsessing over baseball, his legacy (funny that he tries hard to spin his double-term into a positive in spite of record deficits and a war with no end in sight), and words with more than 2 syllables (low blow, I am slightly apologetic). Resigned, W. would only be in a seat at his house, flipping channels controlling a large-screen LCD television. In power, W. sits in the biggest, most important house in America, and as he flips “channels” (war in Iraq, American economy, China loan sharks, his potential successors), he unfortunately controls real lives with every button-press.

W. did the Iraqi people a favor by taking out Saddaam Hussein. He was a tyrannical ruler, and has the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi people on his hands.

W. did the Iraqi people a disservice by not understanding the complexity of the Iraq region, and the chaos and instability that would come from an entire people suddenly being freed from oppression.

Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and American soldiers are standing in the crossfire. And, just for standing on Iraqi soil in general, American soldiers find themselves in Iraqi crosshairs as well.

Green zones — those areas designated as “safe” for its zones where its inhabitants are supposed to be safe — are being attacked, Baghdad is a war zone, “splurge” would be considered both helpful and yet still yield very little for stability in Iraq. What can be concluded from the report this week from the top American general in Iraq is that while there have been gains in the war on terror in Iraq, those results are very instable, fragile and in as soon as a few days could be completely reversed. Bush is in complete “delegation mode” right now, pushing off this Iraq debacle to the upcoming commander-in-chief.

It is long past time for America to back out of the war they surged into with a purpose but no competent plan of exit.

Understandably, not everyone agrees on this war. Lives continue to be lost, and the last thing any of us want is for the soldiers who laid their lives on the line for this global war on terror to be lost in vain.

As Congress received the Petraeus and Crocker briefing this week, W. presented an award, posthumously, to a heroic Navy SEAL for his heroic efforts, saving the lives of his comrades:

Navy SEAL Michael A. Monsoor had fast thinking to do when a live grenade came out of nowhere to bounce off his chest: Take the clear path to safety that he had but his comrades didn’t, try to toss it safely away, or throw himself on top of it.

With barely an instant’s hesitation on that Iraqi rooftop, Monsoor took the last course, sacrificing his life to save the men around him. For that, President Bush on Tuesday awarded him the Medal of Honor.

Most Americans know of a family member or friend fighting in Iraq, or the Middle East. When on American life is lost, we all feel the pain. To steal the Edward R. Murrow quote: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” Speaking out against the war in Iraq does not mean Americans are un-American, as the current administration would have you believe.

Speaking of my own dissent against the war in Iraq, I think of Monsoor and those 4,000-plus casualties as I voice my disagreement with W. and his administration’s poorly planned, chaotic, indefinite occupancy in Iraq. The ideal number for casualties of war: ZERO. The sooner we average that per day, the sooner Americans will be better off.

So to those jokesters, ditch those quirky “Crock brought us a bunch o’ crock” and “Petraeus = be-tray” lines; they are aimed at the wrong targets.

Instead, dissent and blame should be placed solely on President George W. Bush and his inadequately brained, overcompensated power-filled administration. Keep the American casualties in mind as you disagree — they fight with weapons, so we can have the right to fight with words.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again:

You control the fate of your own ass; both literally and figuratively.

Sitting atop the list of the most odd stories of the fresh new year is the report that a 35-year-old woman in Kansas sat on a toilet for two straight years. During the prolonged, self-imposed sit-in, her extremely dedicated and most likely equally twisted boyfriend brought her food, water and changes of clothing.

My question to the ladies: Is this romantic enough for you?

As we know, no good deed can go unpunished, after the boyfriend called the authorities on February 27 to report his potty princess’s health issues, the sheriff who arrived at the scene is trying to place get charges filed.

I have to side with the boyfriend on this case, as hard as it is right now, considering there’s more of this story to come out. He stood by his lady through a very traumatic, odd experience and finally called the authorities when he knew her life was in danger. His logic in maintaining his relationship, rather than “flushing it,” — so to speak — baffles me. But, nevertheless, he supported his “potty princess” through it all and should be commended.

People do crazy things when they’re in love. Why should we be so surprised two people were able to maintain a relationship in a bathroom?

This has to be the most disturbing relationships a person has ever had with their lady and toilet since Al Bundy.

One of the most intriguing figures in the now infamous “Spitzer Scandal,” is Governor Eliot Spitzer’s estranged wife, Mrs. Silda Alice Wall Spitzer.

During Gov. Spitzer’s apology, and subsequent resignation, Mrs. Spitzer could be seen in the background with her face pale and exhausted, assuming the same role as many wives of powerful men before her — standing by her man.

But is she doing more than just literally standing by her man?

What is the thought process going through her mind? Was she privy to his freelancing? Or, if not, how outraged is she at finding out about his infidelities by way of a media rainstorm?

One story in the New York Post has a family friend saying that, for now, Mrs. Spitzer will ride out this storm with her husband.

Can Gov. Spitzer pull a Kobe Bryant and rebound (pun intended) with his wife by purchasing some ignorantly large and expensive “bling” for his second-in-command? Would she even accept that, considering how far his “mighty” has fallen?

Even as the Spitzers drop back out of public life (as much as the paparazzi will let them) and attempt to iron out the many lumps in their marriage and family life, the prostitute from the scandal emerged and now has her 15 minutes of fame, a la Monica Lewitsky.

The New Jersey girl named as “Kristen” in the scandal, Ashley Alexandra Dupree, is a 22-year-old bartender/waitress/party girl. Her options now, given her newfound celebrity status, include choosing between Penthouse and Hustler magazine. Her latest cover on the New York Post is rather racy, and her status, looks and intrigue (choose one) earned her nearly 5 million hits on her MySpace page, where she promotes her musical aspirations. Her status and Spitzer’s long list of enemies combined to get her a free public defender who (surprise!) has a bone to pick with the ex-New York governor.

With “Kristen” cashing in on her moment in the sun, the “other woman,” Mrs. Spitzer, has to handle seeing her husband’s sins plastered all over the news. The three young daughters will ask questions and Mrs. Spitzer will be the one to try and explain why they are receiving extra attention, and why their daddy is unemployed now.

If your significant other admitted to a life of hypocrisy and wrongdoing, and jeopardized everything the two of you built together, would you stick around? Would you stand behind them as they denounce their own actions, or would you be far, far away, and less forgiving?

Ironically, we all know exactly what to do these difficult situations — that is, until it reaches our own doorstep.

Once touted as the second-coming of famous gangbuster Elliott Ness, and the “Who’s Now” of ethics-prosecutors, New York state governor Elliott Spitzer was implicated in a phone tap of a prostitution ring.

Here are a few links:

• The Smoking Gun
• Pictures of “The Emporer’s Club” website
• New York Post details

The country will not devise from the latest comments from the wife of Barack Obama, Michelle, that she is unpatriotic. The powerful Republican attack machine will paint her like so, however.

Already, Cindy McCain, the wife of GOP lead nominee John McCain, alluded to the remarks by reinforcing her own American pride.

Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, responded to Michelle’s comments:

Anyone who heard her remarks…would understand that she was commenting on our politics” — not on America itself.

The match-up of the wives of the two leading presidential nominees could prove to be notable if both McCain and Obama win their respective party nominations. Right now, the Republican attack machine will make sure it appears that Mrs. McCain has a one-up on Mrs. Obama. Shady politics on the GOP side are inevitable; not right, just inevitable.

I enjoyed the latest column from Maureen Dowd where she brings up a rather humoring point where Hillary Clinton may spin the tables around on her lead opponent:

The attribution problem might be small beer compared with Michelle Obama’s comment in Milwaukee on Monday: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

It’s a discordant note for the stylish, brainy 44-year-old Princeton and Harvard Law School grad. Cindy McCain showed that Republicans would jump right on a line like that, and twist it into something that sounded extremist and unpatriotic.

Michelle made another of these aggrieved pronouncements at a rally in Los Angeles before the California primary: “Things have gotten progressively worse, throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn’t gotten better for regular folks.”

Given the way the Clintons unfairly turn the tables, we’re only moments away from Hillary asking Obama: “Can’t you control your spouse?”

Today, Wisconsin voters have decided that Illinois Senator Barack Obama is their choice for the Democratic presidential nomination. As of 10 p.m., the margin of difference over Sen. Hillary Clinton is just over 10% so far. In just a few hours, we will find out how Hawaii voted.

At the end of the weekend, the Clinton campaign took a last-ditch effort at deflating the phenomenon known simply as “Obamamania” by accusing Obama of plagiarizing part of a speech given by his friend, Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick (a man who endorsed Obama in Boston). Obama responded by admitting that he neglected to give proper credit but downplayed its importance, adding the following:

I’ve written two books. Wrote most of my speeches,” he said. “So, I think putting aside the question you just raised in terms of whether my words are my own, I think that would be carrying it too far. Deval and I do trade ideas all the time, and, you know, he’s occasionally used lines of mine. I, at a [fundraising] dinner in Wisconsin, used some words of his. And, you know, I would add that I know Sen. Clinton on occasion has used words of mine as well.”

It’s safe to say that voters in Wisconsin did not hold the charge against the Illinois senator.

Tonight, most big TV networks cut away from the end of a Clinton speech to televise Obama’s victory speech where his words seemed to resonate beyond just the night’s win in Wisconsin, his now 9th straight primary/caucus win (Hawaii would make it 10); they were aimed on more of a national level, aimed at the White House directly. It may be a bit presumptuous on his part, but right now he holds the lead over Clinton. Tim Russert of MSNBC believes that Obama’s campaign cut into Clinton’s speech after it was apparent she was not conceding to her Wisconsin loss, just as when she was swept in the Potomac Primaries.

On March 4, big states Ohio and Texas will vote in a very pivotal primary. Clinton must win both states to remain in the race. She needs to win by a sizable margin to overtake the overall lead. Right now, Obamamania appears to sweeping the nation. Clinton is on the ropes, considering Obama is dipping into some of her main base — women and white male voters.

This race could get considerably uglier if Clinton decides to take to dirty tactics going into the March 4 primaries. Wisconsin voters held negative ads against Clinton, exit polls showed, so that may not prove to help her in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. In South Carolina, the person who used to be her best political asset, ex-President Bill Clinton, went from helpful to hurtful when he placed a negative touch on race.

Hillary Clinton is on her last wind, and needs serious help from Obama, by way of a slip-up at some point; or a very powerful and moving debate showing in the coming weeks.

She can hear the “Home Train” coming, engineered by the “hope-mongerer,” the question is, can she recover?

Or is Obamamania too large a phenomena to overcome?

UPDATE:

A fun moment just happened on MSNBC’s political coverage. Chris Matthews put Texas State Senator Texas Kirk Watson on the spot, revealing that Sen. Watson could not name a legislative accomplishment of the candidate he supports, Obama. After the interview was cut short, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann hopped in to slightly defense Watson by asking if Matthews could name an accomplishment set by Congress in the last few years… to which Matthews could not and, ironically, came back by saying he needed more preparation.

The Good: Matthews’ lack of knowledge slightly helped Sen. Watson.

The Bad: Umm… wow, key supporters — powerful ones who should know more than the rest of us regular ol’ citizens! — draw blanks when asked specifics of who they support.

The Ugly: Watson is a man who makes big decisions on a daily basis for the country! Someone send that man a “Yes, we can!” brochure, stat!

For as much as we want to regulate who views what at various point of their lives — thinking in terms of children and the parental point-of-view — censorship is incredibly difficult.

For better or worse, various outlets are free to publish their views within the legal protection of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.

America’s freedoms are one of the main reasons why millions of immigrants risk their life and limb to find their way into the states and establish a home. Though government officials are still trying to figure out where to draw the line (or build a wall) when it comes to the immigration issue, it is a known fact that America is a popular destination place for many folks throughout the world. While the U.S. openly opposes governments who censor their people’s right to speak out against ruling parties, like all good things, limits will be tested, even in the “land of the free.”

Today, NYTimes.com reported that an injunction was set against a website, Wikileaks.org, for giving access to certain leaked documents that apparently upset a Cayman Islands Bank owner. The site considers their domain injunction similar to having the New York Times print blank pages, or the power company ordered to shut off their power:

To find an injunction similar to the Cayman’s case, we need to go back to Monday June 15, 1971 when the New York Times published excepts of of Daniel Ellsberg’s leaked “Pentagon Papers” and found itself enjoined the following day. The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times’ printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power. The supreme court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.

According to the Wikileaks website, their description is as follows:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

The U.S. domain name, wikileaks.org, was shut down — albeit temporarily, I believe — as the injunction was set against the U.S.-based domain owner company. The site is still available via alternate domain names from around the world — wikileaks.cx and wikileaks.be, among others.

From the standpoint of the government(s) who stand opposed to this kind of site, I’m sure their objection would come by way of the documents being provided against non-disclosure agreements signed by the leaking parties, and the legal implications that may be tied to it. Maybe one of these leaked documents is not a truly genuine, certified one, and it implicates parties that should not be; then that proves to do more harm than good. Or, for instance, if the document leaked contains personal data or financial information — SSNs or bank access numbers — then the courts should definitely seek to ensure the Right to Privacy Americans have.

On the other hand, as I sift through the site I can see the rationalization of why the site owners can find objection to such an oppression of their site, which may have some serious redeeming value in the oversight of corruption. If the overall purpose is to expose corrupt officials and governments, or at least force transparency for the countries involved, they have a serious case and hopefully this will get dealt with as soon as possible; we would hate for the lines of freedom and censorship to be so blurry that a wrong move is made one way or the other that may prove to be hard to reverse in the short-term.

In many cases we are stuck at a Catch-22. We demand just as much freedom as we do privacy. Where does that line in the sand get drawn? It appears with this case we are figuring this out very slowly.

Or maybe this is too impossible task altogether.

After running away with a dominant victory in the South Carolina primaries (as expected), Senator Barack Obama received good news that the family of the ex-president his campaign has been compared to, John F. Kennedy, are endorsing him.In a New York Times op-ed piece today, JFK’s daughter, Caroline, wrote a glowing endorsement of Obama and the importance of his inspiring the “new generation of Americans” –

“Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.”

The TIMES’ Mark Halperin writes today that there are “Six Reasons Why the Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal”. Among them –

1. He has a huge following with Hispanics, a big deal in California and other Super Tuesday states, and one of Obama’s weaknesses.

2. The symbolic Kennedy family thing — the ultimate message of change, viability, Democratic legitimacy, and youthful excitement.

3. The national press will be obsessed with the story for days and days to come, with no downside for Obama; the local press coverage when Kennedy travels for Obama will be ginormous.

4. It sends a message to other senators and superdelegates that it is OK to be for Obama — they don’t have to be afraid of the Clintons.

5. He has a huge following among working-class, traditional Democrats, one of Obama’s weaknesses.

6. He has a huge following among union households, another of Obama’s weaknesses.

This could be a big deal heading into next Tuesday’s fake “national primary” where 22 states open their voting booths.

Among things that may not be a big deal, Stuart Rothenberg breaks down early exit polls and makes the argument that “electability” may not be as big an issue as many folks think.

With all the chaos involved in switching host servers, I nearly missed out on a few news items that may affect the piggy bank.

President Bush and Congress have been in cohorts working on a plan to hand money back to the American taxpayers (that’d be me) so that same money can in turn be spent back into the economy and — BAM! — everything resumes back to normalcy… right? Ok, maybe not.

As I know only bits-and-pieces about the economic stimulus plan, I’ll let the New York Times site work it out for me in a nutshell –

Hoping to give a quick adrenaline shot to the ailing economy, President Bush and House leaders struck a deal on Thursday for a $150 billion fiscal stimulus package, including rebates for most tax filers of up to $600 for individuals, $1,200 for couples and, for families, an additional $300 a child.

How many months does it take to have babies… 9 months? Damnit! So much for a bonus $300. I’m sure this is one of those times where those families who decided to quit mating after 1-2 children (2.5 in the average household last I read) might wish they had just put up with just… one… more. On that same token, if the country ever reached a point where population was in need of a boost, the gov’t could implement the same “stimulus” plan and gave a 1 year advanced notice. There’d be babies popping out of glove compartments, pockets and Jack-in-the-boxes!

(Ok, enough craziness for me.)

Seriously, though, the government can’t actually have that much confidence in this plan, can they? Of course I am all for receiving extra money back from the same fine government who takes it from me every day, but these “quick fix” plans do not sound appealing from a larger scale. We are assuming everyone will spend their money immediately, and it would need to work that way for this plan to be effective, it seems.

This plan does not take into account how much Americans just LOVE to overspend. In fact, our debt — on both the state and national levels — is completely out of control. Some of us (notice how I include myself, because I’m not perfect like you!) get a little over our heads, allowing our wide-eyes to do the decision-making for us. “Hey, I’ll pay it off in a few months…” turns into “damnit, how much are they charging me per month for that now? Damn!”

So in reality, here is how the stimulus plan will really work:

1. Check gets sent to, and received from, ordinary Joe Blow.
2. Joe Blow is so ecstatic that he does not realize that his “dollars from God” is really his own money the government shipped back to him. He gets on the phone to brag to friends.
3. Joe gets a hold of his buddies and finds out they all received the same check! Awesome!
4. Hyped and feeling the check burning a hole in their pockets, Joe & Co. conjure up a plan to take that long-awaited Vegas vacation.
5. The fellas fly out to Vegas first-class, with a bottle of champagne on the way over to toast the occasion.
6. In Vegas, the guys stay at a fancy hotel and treat themselves like royalty.
7. Vegas trip ends, hotel bill arrives by way of wheelbarrow. The guys place the money on their credit cards.
8. Back home, the guys receive the credit card bills and get punched out by their respective wives, girlfriends and fiscally smarter buddies who stayed home.
9. Debt higher, Joe is back to square one, two times more in debt than he was in the plus (+) at the point where the check was on fire in his hands.
10. Joe hates the government for his own fiscal irresponsibility. The gov’t receives temporary boost, but none enough to balance a fledgling economy on the ropes.

Craziness. Go ahead and call me “Joe” for now, because historically I’ve been a poor spender. I have been better as of the last few months but not long enough to flaunt any sort of responsibility in the finance department.

I am glad the government is working to try and fix what is broken. Our dollar is at a serious low — $1.49 to get 1 euro… and I’m headed there in a few months, damnit! — and this is the best we can do as the rest of the world is panicking and using the forbidden word in horror — “recession.” I hope this is just panic and hysteria over something that may not be all that bad in the long run. But for the time being, our gov’t is making moves, and we’ll find out sooner or later whether they’re effective ones. In the meantime, I need to hop on Orbitz.com and see if I can find some cheap flights! Vegas, here I come! Woohoo…