Sloan Morganstern

Zo Scores Again!

2009-04-22T06:34:00.003-05:00

Check out this link at Big Hollywood for Zo's tea party appearance in Sacremento. If you're unfamiliar with Zo, check out his fun rants at PJTV.

Pseudo Clinton Administration

2009-01-06T14:14:00.003-05:00

With the mention of Leon Panetta as the probably head of the CIA in the upcoming Obama administration, many are scratching their heads as to the wisdom of the selection of yet another Clinton retread to this most important post.

Others are commenting on Panetta's lack of direct experience in the business of espionage and his adverse comments on the previous actions of the CIA. And others are commenting on the negative remarks made by other high muckety-mucks in the Democrat party, Feinstein for one. Rockefeller for another.

I am wondering what's going on with so many of Bill Clinton's former cronies being named to the Obama administration's key positions. Is Obama so inexperienced that he can't find his own administration members without borrowing from the previous Democrat president's staff? Was a deal made with Hillary and Bill?

The most curious question in my mind is where will the loyalty of these appointees lie? With Obama? Bill? Hillary?

UPDATE: Another former Clintonista joins Obama's admin. Carol Browner (former head of the EPA) will be Obama's head of climate and energy policies.

Burning Down the House - Mortage Crisis Explained in 10 Minutes

2008-09-26T08:50:00.004-05:00

Watch this video. It may explain a few things about how we arrived at this crisis.

You might want to pause it a few times to take notes and verify some of the quotes and examine the charts more closely than the fast-paced video allows.

That's Birmingham, England, Guys

2008-09-24T05:11:00.005-05:00

Obama's tragic flaw may very well be hubris. His pseudo-Greco Roman columns, his "we are the ones we've been waiting for" speeches, his short-lived Prepresidential seal, etc. etc. etc.

His presidential seal is being struck even as we have 6 more weeks until the election. Maybe his favorite song is "Wishing Will Make it So".

Rank and file union members and business people in the US should note that the Obama team selected a British firm to produce the tokens of his imminent presidency. Good choice, Barack.

John McCain, can you do something with this? Please? Poke a little fun at Caesar Obamus. Let American workers know where Obama likes to shop.

Where's the Music?

2008-09-23T11:53:00.001-05:00

"Uncharacteristically low turnout for Barack Obama rally in Green Bay, Wisc.
McCain/Palin drew 4,000 more supporters at same venue a week ago."

Maybe he didn't have a rock show beforehand.

Poor Obama

2008-09-02T14:16:00.003-05:00

Poor Obama. He no sooner wins officially the Democrat presidential nomination and shuts the door on his female opponent once and for all when another politician in skirts pops up threatening to rain on his parade.

He probably thought he had it made, and maybe he still does. But you have to admit that the game has changed a bit in the last four days.

Who would have thought that the Republican party would be the one to boast a female on the ticket in 2008? It was Hillary's year, after all. But who would have thought that she would have lost it - we can argue about the combination of occurrences that doomed her chances - in early days?

The MSM is showing its hand, although a bit carefully at the moment. We will see how they continue to pursue their nearly unanimous quest to elect a Democrat to the White House and what tactics they will use to smear McCain's choice for Vice President.

What? (1) She's not an "authentic" woman. That's the term they used to criticize any and all black Republican candidates or appointees. Gov. Palin can point to her five children to prove she's authentic in that regard. (2) She's too prolific. I expect this from all the greenies. Just think how much consumerism her brood will exude. (3) She's too pretty, and a beauty queen to boot. They're just jealous.

Let's wait and see what they pull out of their hats.

Concession my Foot!

2008-06-09T16:40:00.003-05:00

That was no concession speech. Hillary picks a local so stately it reminded me of Hitler's grand rallies. Surrounds herself with adoring, fanatical fans, and sings her own praises more than she does those of Senator Obama.

Note her expressions during the part of her speech when she "endorses" Obama. Disgust, sneering condescension is what I see. She isn't going anywhere. Just like a bad penny, she and her consort will pop up early and often.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Sexism or Not?

2008-05-31T07:39:00.003-05:00

How can Hillary be crying sexism and saying that she's the most electable at the same time?

If sexism is rampant in the US, there is no way she could consider herself the most electable. Maybe she has a plan to sicken all men right before election day. Well, I'm already sick of her but would crawl from my deathbed to vote for whoever runs against her.

Buck up, Buttercup

2008-05-23T10:23:00.005-05:00

Sen. Clinton must finally have seen the handwriting on the wall. She's out and about placing the blame for her decline on sexism.

I find it hard to accept. In fact, I am offended, as a woman, by her insinuation of sexist bias by, I have to assume, the American people, the press, and politicians. Let's look at her political history to try to find where she might have suffered by prejudice.

Well, she's been elected Senator, twice. She's been the frontrunner for the Democrat nomination since, oh, 2004. In spite of her questionable qualifications and personal ethics, a large portion of the aristocracy of the Democrat party, Howard Dean, Terry McAuliffe, and others, have been in her corner since Day One and have paved the way for her campaign, giving her the leg up she needed. The liberal public has forgotten, forgiven or ignored all her baggage from her husband's administrations, in DC and in Arkansas. The mainstream media have hardly even hinted at the scandals, political boo-boos, and general unpleasantness of the Clintons' eight years in the White House, opting to grant her executive experience by osmosis.

Perhaps, the "sexism" she perceives was actually one in her favor. She was routinely, both in her senatorial and presidental campaigns, handed softball questions. She rarely had any pointed followup questions. She was allowed to duck the press in favor of her "listening tours". She was protected at all times from potential embarrassing situations, both by her handlers, and the Secret Service. Rarely were any of the Clinton indiscretions of the 80's and 90's mentioned by the MSM. One could assume that no one wanted to embarrass her. Put her on the spot. See her sweat.

The few instances mentioned to support her charge of sexism, were minor. The Hillary nutcrackers, the cartoons, the "Iron my shirt" radio publicity stunt, pale in comparison with the insults thrown at Condoleeza Rice, who never complained about sexism, or racism, as far as I can tell. Ms Rice knows that politics is hardball, and if you can't take your licks, get out of the game.

The press and the pundits as well as the public have never known how to treat Sen. Clinton. From the very beginning of their "co-presidency", she was somehow granted the spotlight, but spared the necessity of political accountability. She was treated with traditional First Lady deference, even as she stirred the political pudding in the War Room. There is no way to impeach the spouse of the President. No way for a recall to occur.

What really bothers me about her "sexist" claims is how she has always used her sex when it was convenient or even politically imperative for her to do so. Let us count the ways:

1. The name changes - Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton

2. The "Pretty in Pink" interview - sweet little wife in soft pink dress, pearls, soft light, etc.

3. Hanging onto the coattails of her husband (Does anyone really think we would even had heard of her if she wasn't the wife of a President?)

4. The famous glimpse of cleavage when Hillary wore the most revealing top (blouse, shirt, whatever is was that showed a little cleavage) for the first time. Does she not have final approval of her apparel? She had to know that there would be repercussions. She is normally so covered up, neck to toe, that the view of her bosom was surprising and therefore bandied about in blogs, on television, and the press. There were comments about the photos of Obama frolicking in the surf, if I remember correctly.

5. The tears.

The United States has women Senators, women in Congress. There have been women in presidential cabinets. Women run Fortune 500 companies. A woman is the Speaker of the House, for pity's sake, the third in line to the presidency. Hillary Clinton herself has been elected to the Senate and is, or was, the heir apparent to the Democrat nomination in 2008. When the postmortems are written, I doubt if much credence will be given to her whiny claims of sexism.

The nomination was hers to lose. She's losing it, maybe in more ways than one.

No Fat Lady Yet

2008-05-07T07:26:00.004-05:00

It ain't over....

Sure, it looks like it's over. It looks like Bill thinks it's over. Chelsea doesn't look too excited either. It adds up that it's over. But it ain't over.

People thought it was over in '98 when the Lewinsky scandal broke. It wasn't. People thought it was over when the Clintons raidedthe White House of its furnishings. It wasn't. People thought it was over after the presidential pardons. It wasn't.

I could go through the whole eight years of the Clintons' first presidency pointing out instances when people thought it was over. They are made of India rubber.

Hillary's a fighter, perhaps more so than Bill. Besides, she has nothing to lose at this point. She doesn't really care about the Senate seat. It was purely a stepping stone for higher office. If she runs in 2010 and loses, she can start her second campaign for the 2012 election. Whatever.

She could lower the boom any day now. Her investigators may have provided a juicy Obama tidbit which she would prefer not to expose. If the Republicans don't have it, or choose not to use it, she has to decide just how much she's willing to risk order to obtain the nomination. She would lose the black vote, if she hasn't already, and probably a goodly number of other Democrats who would consider it dirty pool.

This is fun. I will hate to see it over in Denver.

2008-04-26T07:44:00.002-05:00

Get ready for your rebate.

While you are enjoying your $600 or whatever amount you receive, better save it and then save even more. If a Democrat wins the White House and if a few more win seats in Congress, you will need a good bit more available for your increased taxes.

Don't spend it. Save it.

Now for the Way-Back Machine - A Denial and a Confession, of Sorts

2008-04-25T07:47:00.010-05:00

Remember.

Do you really want him back in the White House? Do you really want his "wife" back in the White House?

From President Bill Clinton's speech Aug. 17, 1998, a semi-confession:

"Good evening.

This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury. I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.

Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action. I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.

In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.

The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.

This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.

Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.

Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on. We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

Thank you for watching. And good night.''

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Where are His Minders?

2008-04-11T08:21:00.005-05:00

An interesting tidbit from ABC News blog this morning. Bill Clinton must have eluded his minders yesterday on the campaign trail in Indiana. Wordy as usual, he included this comment about the recent Bosnia sniper brouhaha, just as it started to slip off the radar screen. Sen. Clinton must be livid.

"A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me," he said. "But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flack jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because, what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."

Thanks, Bill. The ABC blog continues:

"Sen. Clinton did not apologize, like Mr. Clinton asserted, she simply indicated that she mispoke when describing the Bosnia incident.

While the former president may have been amused by the whole incident, his telling of the course of events wasn't quite accurate. Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at an event in Iowa on Dec. 29, amd an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17."

Nervous People

2008-03-29T08:53:00.002-05:00

I tell you, there must be more than a few verrrrrry nervous people in the Democrat party and in some of the MSM.

The Kennedys, Sen. Leahy, Bob Casey, Bill Richardson, all the good little Democrats who are supporting Obama, would definitely be treated like traitors. No plum cabinet appointments for them. Rather, they will be bowing to Her Supreme Highness and her Consort.

It ain't over till it's over. That's something the Clintons know all too well. He's been counted "out" too many times and lived to play again for them/her to throw in the towel not.

She's going to go for the count.

More Hillary Bashing, (Unabashed Bashing at That!)

2008-03-28T11:03:00.006-05:00

But who deserves it more? Possibly her husband, but he's not running for President. Just Co-President. Or First Lady's-Man. Anyway, in reference to her, uhmm, "embellishing" the truth about her Bosnian adventure, this clip from a Bloomberg.com item today:

"Clinton spokesman Jay Carson dismisses questions about her credibility. ``She made a mistake recounting a trip she made as first lady to what was in fact a war zone,'' he said, referring to Bosnia. Voters ``don't ask for perfection, they just want to know that you are working hard for them, and no one works harder than Senator Clinton.''"

So voters don't ask for perfection. I think they do ask for truthfulness, something that Sen. Clinton and President Clinton have shown repeatedly that they do not possess or value.

Don't Mess Around with the Clintons, Nancy

2008-03-27T10:29:00.005-05:00

This little tidbit is from Reuters today, Mar. 27, 2008.

Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift

Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:03am EDT

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.
The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.
Pelosi has not publicly endorsed either Clinton or Barack Obama in their hotly contested White House battle, but she recently said superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the nomination contests with the most pledged delegates -- which appears almost certain to be Obama.

----------------

Now the only question seems to be whether or not Ms Pelosi has been sufficiently warned. Perhaps her possible desire to be the only Big Girl in Town will keep her rooting for Sen. Obama even if it is sub rosa. This is all so interesting.

Couple this with the recent questions about the legality of Elton John, a British national, campaigning for Hillary Clinton by performing in a fundraising concert, and you have yet another bad week for Sen. Clinton.

Stay Tuned.

UPDATE:

From the Hill

Pelosi firm on not allowing superdelegates to tip race

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 03/27/08 11:30 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reaffirmed her position that superdelegates should not “overturn the will of the voters” in the face of criticism from top donors to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

“The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said in a statement late Wednesday.

“This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

In a letter first reported Wednesday on talkingpointsmemo.com, 20 top Hillary fundraisers and donors blasted Pelosi for saying that when the presidential nominating contest nears its conclusion, superdelegates should support whoever leads in pledged delegates.

They cited remarks she made to ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on March 16.

“We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes,” the letter said.

The Smartest Woman in the World

2008-02-22T08:09:00.013-05:00

From the nation's newspaper of record, The New York Times, February 22, 2008:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor. “So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late.”

“The problem is she ran a campaign like they were staying at the Ritz-Carlton,” Mr. Trippi said. “Everything was the best. The most expensive draping at events. The biggest charter. It was like, ‘We’re going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look presidential.’ ”“The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign, but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history,” said one major Clinton fund-raiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the campaign.

This is about the smartest woman of her generation, a genius, if we are to believe Bill Clinton. But then, who in their right mind would believe him?

If Senator Clinton can't control the spending of her minions during a campaign (for which she's had over six years to prepare), she would probably have the same problem with controlling government spending. It's all someone elses's money, after all.

The Controller Extraordinaire

2008-01-31T16:21:00.000-05:00

From ABC blogs, Jan. 30, 2008

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden for ABC News' Nightline, was asked about President Clinton’s controversial comments about race and Senator Obama in the past weeks. Clinton apologized for her husband.

“I think whatever he said which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone,” Clinton said, “if it did give offenses then I take responsibility and I’m sorry about that.”

"Can you control him?" asked McFadden.

“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.

How many of you believe that? Was she controlling him during the long years of their marriage? Throughout his many "flings" with Gennifer Flowers, et al? His indiscretion, but definitely not sex, with Monica Lewinsky? If so, she is not normal. If not, what makes her think she can control him now? Does she think we are stupid enough to believe her? I guess so, because she continues to lie and appears not to give a whit.

I tell you, this woman is dangerous.

Bye, Bye, John, See You in 4 Years

2008-01-30T17:01:00.000-05:00

So John Edwards, after several disappointing primaries and caucuses in which he was third, has decided to throw in the towel. I for one am glad, for several reasons.

(1) The main one is that I detest his class-warfare, "two Americas" theme. Who is he, supposedly the son of a mill worker and now a multi-multi-millionaire, to decry this country and the opportunities he found to advance himself? If he can do it, others can too.

(2) The second reason is that he is a trial lawyer who has made the bulk of his money in a shameful manner, with his ambulance-chasing lawsuits.

(3) The third is his refusal to quit the race many months ago when it was discovered that his wife's cancer has returned. I know he says that she insisted that he continue his quest but I feel that he was wrong to do so. If he and Elizabeth Edwards had no small children, it would be different. They and their doctors have no idea what the course of her disease will be. She will need the support of her husband in the coming months and years and so will their children. The rigors of the campaign trail and the demands of the presidency, should he have attained that position, would have severely limited his availability to be as helpful to his family as I feel he should be.

(4) Next, we have his liberalism. I wouldn't want him as President, just for that alone.

(5) Finally, I think he is smitten with himself and his boyish good looks. The famous video of him primping before an appearance makes that totally evident. We had an huge ego in the White House for eight years after the 1992 election and don't need that again.

Did I provide enough reasons? I think so. Now he can be kingmaker, throw his support to whichever candidate makes him the best offer. Attorney General, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice?

Saints preserve us!

Double Standard??? Nah. No way.

2008-01-29T17:01:00.000-05:00

I noticed something last week when Obama was asked what he thought about former President Bill Clinton often referred to as the first black president.

He chuckled a bit and, after a few respectful comments, cleverly responded that he had never seen Clinton dance and would have to defer judgment of whether or not he was a "brother" until then. You can see the video here.

This was little noted in the MSM, just accepted, as it ought to have been, as a light-hearted jest by Obama. Now, picture one of the other candidates, Hillary excepted, being asked that question and giving the same exact answer. Do you really think that it would have been seen as an innocent joke? Not if it had been from the lips of a white Republican candidate. That person would have been chastised, pilloried, excoriated, and hung out to dry in the media by all manner of persons. Apologies would have been demanded, and the poor hapless candidate would have been forced to leave the race.

We have seen it happen all to often to people, not just in public life, who have had the misfortune to go against the citizen PC police. This is what many people have come to fear - the off-hand comment, with no malice intended, taken entirely the wrong way by the ever vigilant, victim-mentality forces that permeate our culture today. It's wrong and curtails spontaneity, good will, as well as free speech.

Let's Shed a Little Light on the Subject

2008-01-17T18:22:00.000-05:00

The dim bulbs are at it again.

A few weeks ago I was disturbed to read that there is a proposal in Congress to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of the energy-saving fluorescent bulb. This is an attempt to force conservation of electricity.

Some thoughts off the top of my pointy little head:

(1) What will be the energy costs to convert old lighting factories to accomodate the construction of fluorescent bulbs? Similarly, what will be the energy costs for replacing fixtures which currently use incandescent bulbs but may not be able to use fluorescents?

(2) Fluorescent bulbs have been around for many decades and have found only imited use in the home environment for a reason. If the technology advances to solve the problems that people find with them( flickering, slow warmups, and harsh illumination), people will make their own decisions and the problem, if one exists at all, will be solved.

(3) The constant humming, and flickering of the fluorescent bulb, is discomforting to some, and downright worrisome to others. (See the clip below from Web MD.)

(4) Shouldn't the public be allowed to choose which bulbs they prefer? Is there so little trust in the free market system? Is it not true that the efficiencies and benefits of fluorescent bulbs would be self-evident? People would be able to see any benefits that might appeal to them (financial, comfort, illumination) and choose to make the switch on their own. After all, at the turn of the previous century, people had no trouble switching from horse and buggy to the horseless carriage. No one had to use the force of the government to usher in that new technology.

This is similar to the California idea to have all home thermostats controlled by power companies (and the state) to automatically set thermostats at a designated temperature and prevent any raising or lowering by indivuals. In other words, in a power emergency (who gets to define that?) one may not be able to maintain a desired comfort level.

I suppose water is next.

Each year the government, local, state and federal, become more and more involved in our daily lives. All the warnings of a few decades ago of the slippery slope have come true. Liberals laughed at those warnings, but it is obvious that it is all too easy to strip away one freedom after another. Soon we could all become little automatons, chugging away in our governmentally controlled environments, sweating or shivering as the State demands, living in our allotted square feet, in our assigned apartment, drinking our allotment of water with our vegetarian meals. This ever expanding nanny state scares me.

Oh! I forgot! It's all for the children.

From WebMD, Jan. 17, 2007

Have you started replacing your old incandescent lightbulbs with those expensive, energy-saving compact fluorescent lamps? They're supposed to save energy, reduce environmental carbon dioxide, and pay for themselves within a year (unless you are clumsy like me and you drop one!)

The British government has mandated elimination of conventional lightbulbs by 2011. Wait a minute! Critics claim health concerns related to these new lamps are being overlooked. Specifically, one advocacy group representing migraine sufferers suggests that the new eco-bulbs actually trigger migraine attacks. They are unclear regarding the proposed mechanism: erratic flickering of the bulbs, toxic (visible) wavelengths, or perhaps some combination of effects.

For decades we have known that some folks are physically uncomfortable in environments with exposed fluorescent tube lighting but controlled studies comparing the rates of acute migraine among age-matched population groups have never been performed.

The UK Migraine Action Association has plenty of anecdotal stories from migraine sufferers that link more frequent migraine headaches with use of these high-efficiency lightbulbs.

It makes little sense to debunk whether or not visible light emitted from a fluorescent lamp causes migraine when we know the same thing can happen to some people who smell pumpkin pie!

Hoist by her Own Petard

2008-01-15T10:55:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton to Tim Russert on Sunday, Jan. 13:

You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.

Did she really think no one would notice the conflict between her first two sentences?

People, give up on her.

We don't need another lying Clinton in the White House.

Very interesting...Also, an Elephant in the Room

2008-01-11T09:12:00.000-05:00

It was interesting and somewhat amusing to hear that former 2004 Presidential candidate and senator John Kerry came out yesterday, January 10, 2008, to lend his support to Senator Barack Obama. Since Kerry's been flying under the radar for the past year or so, it remains to be seen how much his backing will help (or hurt!) Sen. Obama.

What was amusing and caused tongues to wag was the fact that Kerry's endorsement was somewhat of a slap in the face to his erstwhile running mate, John Edwards. It was no surprise to anyone that Kerry didn't endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton. There was no love lost there. As with Al Gore's 2000 campaign, the Clinton's paid not much more than lip service to Kerry's effort to become President. There was even talk that the last thing Sen. Clinton wanted was for Kerry to win in 2004, thus possibly postponing her own candidacy until 2012.

One elephant in the room (strange figure of speech when discussing Democrats) is Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Oscar winner, Savior of the World. He has declined to endorse anyone so far. He could be enormously influential if and when he decides to support either Hillary or Barack Obama. (I see Edwards down for the count.) I'm certain he is weighing his options. I would imagine he has a better chance of a juicy plum job with a President Obama, than with a President Clinton. You just know she will have a great position in mind for her husband. Can you say Supreme Court justice?

It Ain't Over till It's Over

2008-01-09T07:31:00.000-05:00

And it will be a long time until it's over. Nine and a half months. More blogs to read, more to write. More pundits to hear. More speeches to endure. More reasons to feel sick and tired of this overextended process. More examples of how the experts get it wrong. And we still listen to them.

Last night's "surprise" victory for Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary was a perfect example. After the "surprise" victory for Barack Obama the previous week in Iowa, it was widely predicted that (a) Obamamania would sweep New Hampshire (b) Hillary would possible suffer a double-digit loss in the primary (c) Hillary would demand a shake-up of her campaign team and fire Mark Penn (d) Hillary would get out of the race altogether in order to protect the Clinton "brand" from humiliating defeats in South Carolina and beyond.

Guess what? The experts were wrong. Were they more swept up in Obamamania that the voters? Were their computer models wrong? It doesn't really matter why. It's enough just to know that they were wrong. But people will still seek their opinions and appearances on news shows, ignoring their erroneous predictions of the past.

Gary Langler at ABC online states:

There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.

But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.

Now we have Senators Clinton and Obama as the leading two Democrat contenders for the nomination. Former Senator Edwards is trailing badly and may lost his viability as a serious candidate soon. Whether or not he has any chance of acquiring the VP spot remains to be seen. I doubt it. He and Hillary don't seem to be a match made in heaven. I have always thought that Hillary would pick more of a real outsider, someone with little Washington or media history, an Evan Bayh, or Ted Strickland. I used to think Richardson had some chance of joining her on the ticket, but not now. He has said and done too much to ingratiate himself with her any longer.

Stick around, folks. It's going to be a bumpy night.

Poor Baby. How Do You Do It?

2008-01-07T17:56:00.000-05:00

After being questioned by an obviously entranced fan, Hillary had a minor break in her otherwise firmly cemented demeanor. Apparently near tears, Hillary evidenced a brief gllimpse of humanity, all too often hidden away, except for carefully scripted waves, smiles, hugs, other typical glad-handing of politicians universal. Her often shrill voice, became soft, slow, humble. If we know anything about her, she's not humble.

I say "apparently near tears" because one never knows with the Clintons. Her outbreak of defiance Saturday, was probably planned to give a boost to her passionate determination to lead. She keeps telling us she's ready to lead. Able to lead. I don't want to follow her over the cliff, thank you very much.

By the way, her insistence that she has "made change" for thirty-five years left me wondering if her stint with Walmart was behind a cash register, not in the boardroom.

Rumors to her imminent demise abound. I don't believe it. She can lose in New Hampshire and still make a comeback. The Clintons have too much at stake to give up. She's waited too long, put up with too much, and may not have another chance to grab the presidential ring. One possibility, however - if Obama or a Republican gets elected and screws up, she will still be able to go for it in 2012 and really come to the rescue.

But, should a Democrat get elected, look for a Clinton to accept only a major, major role. No cabinet position would be prestigious enough. Supreme Court, perhaps?

Heaven forbid!

The Anchoress has a good summary of all this here.

Beware the Hammer

2008-01-04T17:40:00.000-05:00

Listening to a host of pundits on the radio today, I was aware of how everyone is saying that the Clintons have lined up some juicy tidbits to hammer Obama with, while hoping that some of the dirt sticks. They are the masters of nasty politics, from fund-raising to negative campaigning, all the while accusing others of the very schemes they have perfected.

No one, at least no one that I heard, said that, while Obama has so far deferred mentioning Hillary's (and Bill's) nefarious background, that field is loaded with dirty laundry. He could have a field day dragging each one out to fresh air out once again. Remember, she had her hands in just as much as Bill did.

Very interesting.

Good for Obama

2008-01-04T11:54:00.000-05:00

Finally, some solid evidence for the world that the United States is not the racist black-hating country that others portray it. A intelligent charismatic black man has stepped up to the challenge, provided a good showing,and now has a good chance of being the Democrat nominee for the Presidency.

There will be tough times ahead for him, from Democrats as well as from Republicans. There are those Democrats with a vested interest in another Clinton regime who will be scouring his past (kindergarten drawings, perhaps) looking for anything to bring to light and use against him. Don't put anything past Bill and Hillary. John Edwards may or may not be as bloodthirsty; we don't have that kind of track record for him. The rest of the pack probably has no chance and won't present a problem for Obama.

The Republicans, who are having squabbles of their own won't waste any ammunition on Obama. They will wait to see who actually is the final nominee. They have plenty of ammo to use against Hillary. I expect they are quietly looking into Obama's voting record, both as a State Senator and as a Senator from Illinois in Congress. Anything they turn up there will merely be issues from which to draw distinctions between his liberal tendencies and the more conservative leanings of whichever Republican gets the final nod this summer.

It is going to be an interesting 10 months. Personally, I wish it were over.

What is the Iowa Caucus?

2008-01-03T11:02:00.000-05:00

Instead of having a primary as most states do, Iowan voters for each political party will attend group meetings by precincts across the state. Some are held in schools, or even people's homes.

At these meetings, the voters will indicate their choice to compete for their party's presidential nomination by hand raising, ballot casting, or even moving to different sections of the room.

Here's an interesting fact:

n the Democratic party caucuses, votes are cast by raising hands, a sign-in sheet or by splitting into groups supporting each candidate. In the Republican caucuses, votes are cast by secret ballot (each eligible voter in attendance is able to select the candidate of his or her choice on paper without others in attendance knowing how he or she voted)

This is a favored voting method for unions in their elections. Denying the use of the secret ballot provides the opportunity for arm-twisting, bribery, or even threats, since one's voting preference will be open for all to see.

Which way do you think is more just?

Is this What you Really Want?

2008-01-02T13:51:00.000-05:00

Is this what you want, America? Which Clinton is in charge? Are you ready for more scandals? YOu know Bill will try for the spotlight, don't you? Remember the expression "sucking the oxygen out of the room?" Isn't it mainly a nostalgia for the '90's that's driving the support for Hillary? Are you ready for 4 to 8 years of a tabloid presidency?

Think long and hard. Vote for Obama.

And God Bless Us Everone

2007-12-25T14:07:00.001-05:00

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have live everlasting."

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

He Went to the Mountaintop

2007-12-14T07:22:00.000-05:00

photo credit: AP

The best thing Al Gore has ever done was gracefully bowing out of contention for the US presidency after the 2000 election, not that he had any choice. But he did so in order to spare the country more weeks of judicial, political, and emotional turmoil and deserves credit for that. After his concession, he tried academia, and became even more pedantic in nature and speech than before. He went to the mountaintop and had a revelation. He left the world of political officeholders and turned to his pet topic - the environment. It took the top spot on the agenda of Al Gore for his incubating second life in the public eye.

Early Days
In his youth, he lived a pampered life in a posh hotel in Washington, DC, attending exclusive private schools and returning to his home state of Tennessee on vacations. He claims to have worked on the family farm while living there.

He graduated from Harvard in 1969 and enlisted in the Army soon afterward serving as a military journalist. He spent a few months in Vietnam after which he returned to the States to attend Vanderbilt for a part of a year as a divinity student. Not finding theology his true calling, he put his journalism skills to work for five years at The Tennessean, a newspaper in Nashville.

He then attended law school for a year, before realizing that his next calling was to the government. He followed his father into government service, entering politics and winning election to Congress for four terms as a Representative from Tennessee before winning a seat in the Senate. Having the same name as his father, a long-time Tennessee member of Congress and Senate, could only have helped.

photo credit: Mark Peterson/Corbis.

The Clinton-Gore-Clinton Administration
Tapped by Bill Clinton in 1992, Gore became Vice President for eight years. Mostly untouched by the Clinton scandals, he had more than enough trouble of his own, most of it due to his own miscalculations, hypocrisies, overstatements, and unethical, if not illegal, political dealings. A few are recounted here:

1. Tobacco Hypocrisy -(Al Gore, 1988) -

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put in in the plant beds and transferred it. [ed. I assume he meant transplanted it.] I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

He sold more than tobacco. He sold himself, too. He defended tobacco farmers and received contributions from tobacco companies into the '90's, all the while milking his sister's 1984 death from lung cancer during the 1996 convention. He then claimed to be firmly on the anti-smoking bandwagon. He explained that his "emotional numbness" after his sister's death allowed him to continue to defend and profit from the tobacco business. That "emotional numbness" excuse didn't ring true and while Democrats looked the other way, Republicans made careful note of it.

2. Fundraising Shenanigans -
Unsavory characters (Jose Cabrera and others) donated big bucks to the Gore coffers. The DNC was forced to return some of the illegal gains. Gore himself was caught participating in fundraising at a Buddhist Temple when individual monks, living a life of poverty, were unlawfully reimbursed by the Temple after donating money to Al Gore and the Democrat party. An example of Gore's poor political judgment is that he made some ridiculous claims after the incident came to light, such as not knowing he was attending a fundraiser.

He also made his well known claim that "There is no controlling legal authority" to state that the many fund-raising phone calls he made from his VP office in the White House were illegal. He and Clinton were such weasels. I wonder what Gore's definition of the word "is" is?

3. Exaggerations and Downright Lies -
When the New York Times bemoans the fact that their candidate of choice tends to over-exaggerate, you know it's too evident to ignore.

(NYT, Oct.5, 2000)

"For years, his political opponents have groused that Vice President Al Gore has trouble with facts. They pounced on statements he made about his service in Vietnam, about his record in Congress and even about the price he has to pay for his dog's arthritis medicine."

"...Mr. Gore's shading of the truth has become so frequent that some politicians are no longer dismissing it as sloppy oratory from a candidate under the glare of television cameras.This predilection of Mr. Gore's is all the more surprising because it often involves trivial matters — ones that could easily be checked — such as how Mr. Gore recalled a childhood lullaby that did not exist."

Two examples: (1) Remember how he claimed that he and his wife Tipper were the inspiration for the book and movie "Love Story"? Not true. (2)Remember his boastful stretch of the truth stating that he "took the initiative in creating the internet"? No way. As a Congressman he was in a position to help prevent governmental roadblocks to internet development, but the internet was already in existence without any help from Gore.

A comprehensive list of Al's prevarications, or "exaggerations", can be found here.

The 2000 Presidential Election

The media intelligentsia was certain that Gore would demolish Bush in the debates. That didn't happen. The American people watch the debates and get more information about a candidate by watching how he answers the questions, not just hearing what he says.

I remember the three debates and the three different Al Gores that participated in them. During the first debate he smirked, sighed while George W. Bush was talking, and generally acted like a pompous jerk. For the second debate he was cosmetically made up to look like Ronald Reagan, with makeup sculpting shadows on his face to mimic Reagan's facial planes. His hair was even styled with that little ridge at the top like Reagan's. If a man has to resort to makeup to glom onto the reputation of a popular ex-president, it's a clear indication that he is not comfortable in his own skin. His behavior during the second debate was more controlled, even a bit docile. In the third debate Gore deemed himself "just right" - not too aggressive, not too passive. Others had a different opinion. The three different Al Gores diluted the results for the Democrats; there was only one George Bush and he attended all three.

The revelation that Gore paid Naomi Wolf bongo bucks ($15,000 per month)to become his personal "personality" consultant made people wonder just exactly what she did. Was she his wardrobe maven, urging him to switch from navy suits to brown? Is she the one who advised him to growl like the Alpha-male, sneering while being pompously condescending?

"When a man has to pony up a fortune to a woman to teach him how to be a man, that definitely takes the edge off his topdogginess," wrote NYT columnist Maureen Dowd.

The Gore campaign and Ms Wolf denied her micromanagement of his earthtone hues and alpha-male coaching but the damage was done. The insinuation that Gore was not sure of himself and needed coaching was enough to turn some people away. Combine that with his constant exaggerations of his accomplishments and his unabashed use of his family's personal tragedies for his personal electoral advantage cost him a multitude of supporters and votes.

His stiff demeanor, pedantic mode of expression, and arrogant "know-it-allness", comprised the main ingredients in a recipe for defeat. Add to that "The Kiss", the rather inappropriately prolonged liplock with Tipper Gore during the Democrat convention. It may have been the time, but it certainly wasn't the place.

Of course it didn't help Al being closely associated with scandal-ridden Bill Clinton. It was widely assumed that there was bad blood between the Gores and the Clintons. Bill's deference to Hillary instead of to Gore, i.e., assigning her the plum job of restructuring the health care system, had to have grated on Gore's nerves for quite some time.

There was also a brouhaha over office assignments. Hillary wanted the office wing traditionally assigned to the Vice President and it was only when Al Gore threatened to resign that he was allowed to occupy the office. This was widely known in the political arena soon after the inauguration. The New York Times Magazine stated that "Al Gore hasn't yet realized there is going to be a co-presidency but he's not going to be part of the co," and that, according to the Clintons' close friend and adviser Susan Thomases, Gore "would have to adjust to a smaller role."

As a consequence of all his experiences with the Clintons, before and during the 2000 presidential campaign, Al didn't know whether to praise Clinton or damn him. Resentment over the allocation of a large portion of DNC resources to Hillary's NY Senate bid, and Bill's numerous personal appearances for her added to Gore's chagrin. An article in the Nov. 2007 issue of Vanity Fair states:

"At the same time, Hillary's ascendancy had a significant impact on the presidential prospects of Al Gore, diverting attention and resources from his candidacy and adding to the growing tensions between the Gores and the Clintons over Bill's involvement with Lewinsky."

He tried to differentiate himself from Clinton by stating his and his wife's committment to fidelity and "family values" without distancing himself too much from a popular president. It was a fine line he was walking.

With all the baggage accumulated, his own and some from the Clintons, it was little wonder that Gore had trouble in the election. He didn't even win his own state, and what was assumed to be a runaway for Gore turned into the closest election in US history.

I don't even want to rehash the post election squabbles and travesties. Suffice it to say, when all the dust had settled, Gore won a half million more popular votes than George W. Bush, but lost in the electoral college by 5, 271 to 266. With no more hope of claiming a victory, Gore did concede gracefully.

Rebirth
In his desire to reinvent himself, after the election, much as he claimed to have "reinvented the government", he took himself to academia, grew a beard and professed to "profess" for a seminar at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. His qualifications for the gig were his brief stint in Vietnam as a military journalist, his time with The Tennessean in Nashville, and his eight years on the other side of the fence facing reporters as Vice President. He placed a weird gag order on his students, insisting that his class lectures were "off the record." Equally bizarre was Columbia University journalism school administrator's statement that off-the-record lectures promoted free and open discussion.

“We expect that you will comply with the decision to offer the seminar on an off-the-record basis; your attendancewill be taken as evidence that, in accordance with the School’s honor system, you accept this stipulation.”

Catching some grief for that, Gore wisely lifted the gag order.

Revelation and Reward

Soon after his brief career as a University professor, he shed his beard and threw himself wholeheartedly into his new career as Earth Savior. Long an environmentalist (author of Earth in the Balance, published in 1992) he went to the mountaintop, and came down with a new mission for his life. He delved further into his environmental research (and Powerpoint classes) to produce his second book, supporting the documentary of the same name, An Inconvenient Truth. For his efforts, Gore brought home an Oscar, soon to be followed by the formerly prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.

Kyoto Protocol
In spite of being heavily sponsored by Clinton and especially Gore, the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty had absolutely no chance of passing the Senate. Instead, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res 98) against the US signing the protocol was passed 95-0 and the Clinton Administration never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Gore continues to pass condemnation on his own country for not ratifying the treaty, even though it has been shown to be ineffective in the countries who did sign on. Mark Steyn in the OC Register recently revealed the following:

"At the recent climate jamboree in Bali, the Rev. Al Gore told the assembled faithful: 'My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here.' Really? the American Thinker's Web site ran the numbers. In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here's what happened:

•Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;
•Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;
•Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and
•Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.

Gore's statements to the contrary, there is no universal consensus on man-made global warming, global climate change, or whatever you want to call it. The mainstream media keeps most skeptics' reports on back pages, but they do keep popping up. Gore's refusal to debate the issue with "global warming deniers" (lumped in with Holocaust deniers) or even take questions from the press at some events makes one wonder why.

Legacy
The larger question is what is Al Gore's desired legacy? He has been a successful Congressman and Senator, and a two-term vice president. Failing to succeed Clinton as President, and maybe having to endure 8 years of a presidential Hillary Clinton, Gore may have set his sights on something far grander than the presidency of the United States. He may be angling for a position that would grant him the respect and gratitude of the world. Whether or not he truly believes what he preaches is open to discussion. He certainly talks the talk even as he neglects to walk the walk. Globe-trotting, complete with retinue, and living in a huge, energy-gobbling home, carbon credits notwithstanding, seem to indicate a less than full committment to practicing what he preaches.

To add to the muddle of his involvement in fighting global warming is his founding and chairmanship of Generation Investment Management (GIM), an international investment firm with extensive holdings (as of March, 2007) in some companies participating in industries directly in line with alternative energy, the "greening" of the world, and organic foods. Other companies are more mundane, insurance, pet healthcare, food service and financial services. Whatever their business attachments, Gore stands to profit from others following his advice to purchase carbon credits from his company to atone for their energy using ways.

As more and more people begin to learn of his direct interest in personal profits from his dire threats of global disaster, we can only hope that a truly open discussion of the consequences of global warming and man's ability to affect climate change will shed light on the issue. As long as Al Gore remains the figurehead of supposed "looming calamity", we must remember his reputation for exaggeration and wonder if his true legacy will be as a world-class snake oil salesman.

The Hillary Express

2007-11-17T09:02:00.000-05:00

Ken Falkenstein says:

"CNN has reinforced its well-deserved reputation for being the Clinton News Network. Prior to this week's Las Vegas debate, Hillary's campaign manager gave moderator Wolf Blitzer his marching orders, warning him not to "pull a Russert" by asking her tough questions. Wolf Blitzer followed his orders and gave her only softballs. Turns out the fix was also in regarding who was allowed to be in the audience and what questions they were allowed to ask her (e.g. does she prefer pearls or diamonds):

Welcome to 21st-century American prop-journalism."

Well Ken, no one is surprised. Conservatives "knew" it would happen. Liberals "knew" it would happen. CNN has always been somewhat duplicitous since the early 90's, from Peter Arnett's actions (known for funny business in his Vietnam reporting) in the first Gulf War, to Eason Jordan's convenient omission of Saddam's horrors in his reporting; from CNN glossing over Bill Clinton's multiple scandals, to their glossing over Ms Clinton's scandals, missteps and aversion to answering tough questions (or any questions) with more than lip service, often out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.

Since 1999, when she first toyed with the idea of carpetbagging for the NY Senate seat, the inevitability of it all reared its ugly head (or, to be more precise in this case, headed its ugly rear). The ball started rolling then; if she's stepped in no huge piles of crap as Senator, neither has she stood out as having done anything noteworthy.So the ball is picking up speed now. She has received tons of attention for merely being Ms Clinton. During the never-ending, mind-numbing series of debates, all questions before, during and after are all centered around her or how others compare to her. She would have to spit on the pope, a Torah, a praying muslim, burn the Start and Stripes, and kiss Madonna before the Hillary Express (to mix metaphors a bit) would be derailed.

The only drama now is in watching John Edwards and Barack Obama fumble around trying to decide just how much they can play hardball without getting slapped down by the "not playing the gender card" liberals who support Hillary. The other candidates are just window dressing. There is no way in the world they, or anyone else, ever thought they had a snowball's chance to get elected. There just up there to... why are they up there, anyway? Dennis Kucinich is there for comic relief, at least. It scares me that sometimes he answers questions best of them all. At least we know he means what he says. With Biden's record of plagiarism, he means what somebody else says. Dodd talks so fast, I don't know what he's said or means. (I did like his standing up to Hillary two weeks ago though.)

The other question is who is going to bow figuratively in Hillary's direction enough, without appearing to kowtow, to get tapped for the VP spot. Will it be Bill Richardson? Or an Evan Bayh, waiting patiently in the wings? Newly elected Governor Strickland from Ohio? He's a personable enough fellow with no track record of misbehavior, but no track record of accomplishments, either.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the American people stop and think about having another "two for one" presidency. Hillary was responsible for many of the scandals and public relations brouhahas during her husbands presidency. She has very poor political skills and a tin ear to boot. Bill's smooth personal charms get him through tough spots but he's the one who brought disgrace into the oval office; gave away secrets to China; ignored the growing threat of radical Islam, and other ignoble deeds.The Republicans must list these scandals over and over again, and remind the public that he's going to be lurking in the background for 4-8 years. His "wife" can only ship him off to be "ambassador to the world" for so many months before it is obvious she's trying to keep him out of her hair. He "owes" her big time, but he craves the spotlight too much to allow himself to be ignored.

Pardongate, Part Deux?

2007-11-15T14:12:00.000-05:00

ABC News reports:

"Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.

"It's not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it's inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback."

"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," said Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson, adding sarcastically, "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention."

You would think that after the"unfortunate" business with the Norman Hsu campaign contributions, and with all the previous questionable Clinton (both Hill and Bill) campaign contributions, that someone involved in Hillary's campaign would take advantage of computer systems to check a database of names whose contributions to decline, starting with those whom Clinton pardoned in 2001.

This is a reminder of all the previous shenanigans involving campaign money and last minute pardons. Hillary always claims to have no knowledge of any of these things. The smartest woman in the world never seems to know what's going on around her. We're supposed to have her lead the country?

Well, pardon me. I don't think so.

A Salute to our Veterans

2007-11-12T09:21:00.000-05:00

Listen to the Marine Band.
"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli
We fight our country's battle
In the air, on land and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marine."

Semper Fi.

Now, here's the Air Force Band.

"Off we go into the wild blue yonder, climbing high into the sun;
Here they come zooming to meet our thunder,
At 'em boys, Giver'er the gun!
Down we dive, spouting our flame from under,
off with one helluva roar!
We live in fame or go down in flame. Hey!
Nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force!"

And the the Navy Band.

"Anchors aweigh, my boys.
Anchors aweigh.
Farewell to foreign shores
We sail at break of day day day day.
Through our last night ashore
Drink to the foam
Until we meet once more
Here's wishing you a happy voyage home!"

Can't forget the US Army!

"First to fight for the right,
And to build the Nation's might,
And the Army goes rolling along.
Pour of all we have done,
Fighting till the battle's won,
And the Army goes rolling along.

Then it's HI! Hi! Hey!
The Army's on its way.
Count off the cadence loud and strong (TWO! THREE!)
For where e'er we go,
You will always know
That the Army goes rolling along."

Thanks for everything! Happy Veterans' Day!

Let Them Eat Croissants

2007-11-06T08:13:00.000-05:00

Writers in Hollywood and New York are on strike. Evidently, all of America will be faced with reruns, more reality shows, and potentially even dumber scripts as management and performers try their hand at scriptwriting, Can it get any worse, really?

For the most part, I watch no more television than I am forced to when stuck in a waitingroom at the doctor's office or tire store. But you would have to be on a desert island (one with no satellite service) to avoid seeing or hearing the drivel that passes for entertainment these days.

I had to laugh yesterday when, listening to the radio news, I heard an item about the strike complete with audio of the poor picketing writers, chanting in front of some studio:

"What do we want? More money! When do we want it? Now!"

""On Strike. Shut 'em down. Hollywood's a union town!" and "Are you ready to fight? Damn right!"

Jeepers creepers. No wonder their shows are so bad.They have to drag out forty year old slogans from the Vietnam era. Perhaps they feel the obligation to follow the strike to the letter and not even write any new slogans for themselves.

Next I expect to hear:

"Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Without us, there's no show!"

Or even:

"Two, four, six, eight. Writers make your shows great!"

It's difficult to take them seriously. Most of them are making good money, even for California. When I think of effective strikers, I don't picture skinny mocha extra shot latte-drinking, Gucci-wearing, botoxed Hollywood types. I picture Martin Luther King leading a group of black activists. I picture nitty-gritty workers, jeans (Levis, that is), flannel shirts, walking the lines in rain, snow, sleet, or hail. While the weather in New York can get a little uncomfortable, I feel no pity for those pacing in front of Paramount Studios, and other palm tree laden areas.

The late-night talk shows will feel the brunt of the strike first. I guess famed "funny men" Leno, O'Brien, and Letterman aren't really funny enough to fuel their time on air. The real surprise for me was that "The View" has writers. I thought that those women made up their wisecracks and assinine comments on their own. Also, news writers are on strike. Maybe now, for a change, when we watch/hear the news shows we can just get the facts. We can form our own opinions - without a union.

Let them stay on strike. Let them drink lattes. Let them eat croissants.

Pretty in Pink - Continued

2007-10-31T13:31:00.000-05:00

"CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME 'UNFAIR' MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. 'HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,' TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. 'HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT'"

After all the "unprofessional", nasty and "belligerent" questions and asides asked of Republican candidates by Chris Matthews and his ilk, this takes the cake.

We are asked to take "the smartest woman in the world" and give her the Democrat Party nomination and then elect her President of the United States, but we must respect her gender and not ask her tough questions. Sorry, Toots. Politics is not beanball.

This is the same thing that happened in 2000 when Rick Lazio, a late stand-in for Giuliani (sidelined for medical reasons), dared to approach her on stage during a debate to hand her a piece of paper. He was chastised for "invading her space". What he did might not have been in line with debate protocol, but he in no way was threatening. If she had done the same thing to him, she would have been credited with a crafty move, showing her toughness and political savvy.

Hillary has always been able to have it both ways, the attention of the press, but no tough questions; political input and decisions in the White House, but no accountabiility; appeals to women's feminist desires for a woman President, but no fair treating her like the men are treated.

By the way, a few weeks ago, one of Mrs. Clinton's hired pollsters declared that women will come out of the woodwork to vote for her because she's a woman, or words to that effect. That was a truly insulting remark to the female electorate. I believe that most women will vote along party lines, just like most men. There are always those unpredictables who will make up their minds for whatever reason. Some votes will be cast for Hillary because of her womanhood. Some votes will be cast against her because of her womanhood. Both positions are wrong, but not surprising.

The majority of women who vote for Hillary will really be voting for her promises to take other peoples' money and give it to them. John Edwards has been promising the same thing, but Hillary has said it over and over again. She and her husband have the same philosophy. After Bill Clinton's huge tax increase in the 1990's resulted in a surplus, he admitted that he had thought about giving some of it back. He decided not to because he thought we might not spend the money the right way. Is it not our right to decide how to spend our money?

California Burning

2007-10-25T10:06:00.000-05:00

As I posted a few months ago during the last large batch of wildfires in California and elsewhere, it is amazing the number of fires that regularly plague the earth. Some are man-made, others occur as part of Nature's plan for rejuvenation of forests and prairies, and others just part of the cycle of destruction caused by traumatic events such as erupting volcanos, lightning, etc.

Mother Nature tries to destroy parts of the earth, as well as animal species and mankind, constantly. Sometimes, she succeeds. The fossil record gives evidence of the extinction of a wide variety of plant and animal species, of which the wooly mammoth and dinosaurs are just the largest. There must be thousands of vanished species of which we can only imagine.

During instances such as those now being endured in California, the best and worst of mankind is evident. It now appears that at least one of the fires is the result of arson. Lunatics and terrorists can be counted on to try to destroy what others have created, for whatever ends - political, egotistic, or vicious thrill. Selfless volunteers and experienced professionals extend energies above and beyond the norm to bring aid and comfort to victims, and to risk their own lives to save homes and forests from the fires' ruination. They are supreme examples of the best of mankind and are to be honored for their efforts.

Politicians who step in to take advantage of cameras to grandstand, find fault, or take vicarious credit, should be scorned. Harry Reid's comments about the fires being caused by global warming are outrageous. Even more outrageous is his denying having said that just a few minutes later. No wonder the good people of Nevada are just about fed up with him.

Remembering That Blue, Blue Sky....

2007-09-13T19:13:00.000-05:00

It's September 13, 2007, and the hot, hot, hot weather of the past month has finally broken. Yesterday and today have brought us cool nights and the same beautiful blue sky we enjoyed, for a few short hours, on September 11, 2001. Each of us remembers that day in our own way. It's like when President Kennedy was assassinated. We who were alive then remember exactly where we were and what we were doing.

We were in New York, just west of Rochester actually, heading back to Ohio after a short trip to the Adirondacks. We stopped to buy gasoline and my husband went into to a MacDonalds' to buy coffee and when he returned he said that there had been some crazy old man in the restroom talking about planes flying into buildings. We had been simply driving and enjoying the morning, no radio. When we pulled over to a gas station across the street, the man at the next pump started talking to us about the planes and the World Trade Center. When my husband appeared unaware of this, he told us to turn on the radio. We did and, like millions of Americans, were horrified to learn the few details that were available at that time.

We heard about the Pentagon, and it seemed like the end was indeed near. Rumors were flying fast and furious as newscasters tried to relay info to the public, sometimes without regard to substantiating it. We were told about a plane flying near Cleveland that wasn't responding and was of grave concern to air traffic controllers. This was as we were nearing Cleveland, one eye on the highway and one on the skies. The six hour trip home seemed interminable. We turned on the television as soon as we were in the door and watched the video of the buildings collapsing, and the burning side of the Pentagon.

Unbelievable, but really, all too believable. We should have not allowed the false sense of security to persist throughout the three recent decades of Islamic terror. We were given much warning of what was to come - the Munich massacre, the numerous highjackings, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and Reagan's cut and run from Lebanon, the various hostage situations, including the humiliating Iranian embassy takeover with the year-long embarrassment of Carter's inaction and the eventual pathetic rescue attempt. Then came the 1990's and the Mogadishu "Black Hawk down" followed by Clinton's cut and run from Somalia. Then the 1993 WTC bombing, the various embassy bombings and finally the sneak attack on the USS Cole harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden.

There is enough blame to go around to all administrations, Congress, the media, and mainly to the terrorists themselves. At least the 19 directly responsible did not stand trial, but instead met Allah face to face, only to find no virgins, just the fires of eternal damnation.

Masculinity in the 'Hood

2007-08-30T16:28:00.000-05:00

Although I'm not a big football fan (the Bengals have cured me of that) I do have some thoughts about the NFL - Michael Vick controversey, concerning whether or not he should ever play football again. I'm sure the NFL, its lawyers, the Falcons, their lawyers, the team's owner, his lawyers, and Vick and his lawyers will figure all that out after criminal justice system is through with him. At the very least, the Falcons' fans, whether or not they have lawyers, will miss Vick's participation in the 2007-2008 season.

If you've been living in a cave the past few weeks, you may not know that Michael Vick, erstwhile black quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, has been suspended indefinitely from the NFL, due to his pleading guilty to organizing a dog fighting "league". He will probably spend the next year or more in prison. Dogfighting is illegal in nearly all states and is a federal felony if there has been any interstate activity. It is possible for him to be sentenced to a maximum of five years on federal charges. That could put paid to his football career. If it is proved that Vick was also involved in gambling on the outcomes of dogfights, there could be even more charges against him, and he could face a lifetime ban from football according to the NFL's policy for personal conduct.

Obviously, dogfighting is a repulsive "sport" to most people, doglovers or not. The most heinous of his actions, however, were his methods of killing the underperforming animals.* According to the indictment, Vick "...executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions by various methods, including hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." Reasonable people would judge Vick a candidate for a severe sentence.

The larger question, however, is whether or not he should be deprived of his livelihood for the remainder of his productive football career. He has declared that he is sorry for his actions. Sorry he got caught, maybe. His apology rings a little hollow, too reminiscent of Paris Hilton's repentance of her multiple DUI's and finding solace in the Bible. It remains to be seen how Vick will attempt his own redemption. It takes more than an apology and admitting that he used "bad judgment and made bad decisions." After being heavily involved in dogfighting, he now says that it is "a terrible thing and I do reject it." Riiiiight.

What also concerns me is the developing debate on whether or not Vick is being vilified due to his race more than a white man involved in the same behavior would be. I know no one who would be satisfied with a less severe punishment for a guilty party not of Vick's race. However, there are few who could have lost as much as Vick has already lost. As one of the highest paid NFL players, along with his highly successful product endorsements, he was a much admired Falcon whose jerseys were immensely popular. Certainly Vick will lose his $20 million salary for the next season and possibly more. He may also have to pay back a good portion, supposedly $22 million, of his $40 million signing bonus. He recently lost his position as company spokesman for AirTran Airways and Nike has cancelled his shoe contract.

Future endorsements have flown out the window, unless his successful redemption would make him eligible for something other than a Purina commercial. Whatever criminal punishment he receives, he has already paid a dear price for his "bad judgment and bad decisions." He was ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005. However, various antics even before the dogfighting accusations caused him to lose some luster and several endorsement contracts were not renewed.

Critics have been suggesting that this all is a case of "piling on" and that this incident should not cause Vick to lose his livelihood. In the case of his former endorsments as well as with the NFL and his former team, time will tell. A year or two in prison, with the exercise facilities that will be available to him, won't harm his chances to maintain the physicality necessary to return to the game. Another year or two after he is released, Vick can prove his dedication to "growing up" by avoiding the tempations that led to his downfall. The opportunities in the 'hood to stray will remain.

As another young black man who grew up in the projects has said, "If you can't change the people you're with, you have to change the people you're with." This young man, Farrah Gray, was a millionaire at fourteen, the money earned by hardwork, his entrepreneurial spirit, and his dedication to following the values given him by his family, pride, respect, hardwork, preparation, inspriation, the desire to give back and the strength to never give up. His book "Realliionaire" should be in Vick's jail cell.

Our current culture stripped away a black man's main role in providing for his family - in many ways, not just monetarily. The Great Society's generous but ill-conceived welfare programs made keeping the father at home with the family unnecessary. The advent of the Black is Beautiful movement of the late sixties and seventies was supposed to enable blacks to enhance their lives with pride at being black, not define their lives. Suddenly, the unspoken message went across the nation for black youth to not act like "whitey", to reject the white man's standards in education, especially and most tragically. Young boys interested in learning were often ridiculed for doing well in school. The entertainment industry, with the rise of cable television in the 70's and 80's, showed young black men and women where it was "at" for their success - in the NBA, or the NFL. The sexual revolution in the 70's added to the downfall of the family, both white and black, but it hit far harder among blacks. Birth control was available, and soon legal abortions were there to provide for the birth control of last resort. For far too many, the stigma of unwed motherhood became obsolete, replaced with a badge of self-worth.

From rolling out:

Middle-class black women with children fail to see marriage as an option due to their dissatisfaction with the low numbers of black men they view as marriageable material. The social castration of the black male has almost been secured with soaring high school drop out rates, unemployment, drug abuse, and incarceration.

Midnight basketball programs, the good intentions of keeping youngsters off the streets, reinforced the stereotype. Midnight homework programs would have been a better alternative, but rejected as too white. No one bothered to mention to the millions of young athletic "wannabe's" that only a minute percentage of people, either white or black, makes it to the big show. Millions are left behind with nothing but a good jump shot to show for all their years practicing. Without education to give them an alternative, they go back to the streets and look for other ways to prove their manhood. Then you find the development of men with the attitude "My dog is badder than your dog" and spontaneous dogfights in an alley, either for a few bucks, or the prestige of having such a bad-ass dog.

* I'm sure there are quite a number of athletes who are glad they aren't treated the way Vick's dogs were treated after an underperforming season. However, if Beckham doesn't get his act together soon, there might be some people willing to give him a "slight correction."

What Nerve!

2007-08-29T15:27:00.001-05:00

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

John Edwards proudly says he drives a an energy-efficient Ford Escape and says he uses his Chrysler Pacifica (a "crossover" vehicle more like a station wagon than an SUV) when he needs more than two seat belts in the back. He also admits to having a pickup truck for when he needs to "move furniture or haul something". When was the last time he and Elizabeth moved any furniture?

He lives in a huge monstrosity of a house, to the tune of 28,000 square feet, over 10 times the size of the average single-family home in the US*. He declares that in addition to energy saving methods used at home, he's going to purchase carbon credits in order to ensure that his home is operated in a carbon-neutral way, and at the same time, his guilt at using so much energy is assuaged. Maybe Al Gore can advise him on how to purchase some of his available credits. It looks like Edwards needs to purchase a lot. It appears that a great number of trees had to be felled in order for his house to be built to his specifications.

He is wealthy enough to have an attached recreation building which, according to his county tax officials, "has a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, sqwimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated 'John's Lounge'." Imagine the energy expended just to keep pipes from freezing and enough lights on to get around the 10,400 square foot "main house".

Don't get me wrong. The man has worked hard for his money, even if it was at the expense of medical doctors' insurance premiums. He should be allowed to spend it however he wishes. I care not a whit about how he spends his money. What I do care about is how he tries to tell the rest of us how to spend our money and live our lives.

Edwards is a great one to be bloviating about "two Americas". Maybe he has inhaled too much hairspray.

*according to census figures.

Global Burning!

2007-08-28T15:26:00.000-05:00

The photos spotted on the internet showing smoke emanating from the numerous fires plaguing Greece caused me to wonder what effect these fires have on global warming. Supposedly, the most damage in terms of heating our immediate atmospere comes from active volcanoes. It is difficult to discount the apparent damage from such massive wildfires.

A check with the National Interagency Fire Center gives startling information concerning current large fires in the United States. As of August 27, There were 40 active large* fires, burning 1,780,254 acres. That's over one million acres. We are accustomed to hearing about fires in California, especially in drought years. This year we have heard about massive fires in Oklahoma as well.

The map directly above shows all fires in the US in 2007. Pretty amazing. One interesting thing to me, in evidence especially in the following photo showing smoke from fires in the Santa Barbara area of California, is the visible pollution in the form of smoke from those fires. The pollution from automobiles is different in chemical composition than that in smoke from forest fires. I see no evidence of automobile pollution, however. Perhaps someone will inform me of the reason why. The Earth Observatory website provides satellite photos from wildfires around the world. It's hard to understand why there is no mention of the effects of such fires on global warming. The large fires currently featured are those in California, Greece, Sicily, the Amazon, Montana and Idaho, South Africa, the Canary Islands, Southern Europe, Italy and Manitoba, Canada.

* In wildland fire terminology, a "large fire" is one burning more than a specified area of land, e.g.,300 acres.

No Reincarnation Zone

2007-08-24T09:51:00.001-05:00

Living in Tibet? Planning to reincarnate soon? Better check with the Official Reincarnation Permit Bureau to see if you qualify for a license. China has declared through the State's Administration for Religious Affairs no one shall reincarnate without permission. This is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."

At first this seems mad. Of course, the atheist leaders of the Chinese government have a method to their madness. (The People's Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1950.) This ruling is aimed more at Tibet, and Tibetan Buddhism, than to people in China. It is an effort to maintain and even increase control of deeply religious Tibetan Buddhists, and to limit the influence of Tibet's exiled god-king, the Dalai Lama who is 72 years old. It is natural to expect another incarnation of the Dalai Lama within the next decade or two. It is believed that reincarnated lamas, important buddhist leaders, can be identified as young boys. Preventing the the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist monks from recognizing their own candidates for this position, will give the government greater control over the future of the traditional and mystical system currently used for the recognition of the living Buddha who is to become the next Dalai Lama.

This is just the latest assault on Tibet's Buddhist heritage. Not only has the Dalai Lama been exiled in India and any images of him banned, but also religious and political websites with any reference to Tibet. Many Tibetans are even afraid to mention the Dalai Lama's name in public out of fear of retribution.

The Dalai Lama, who teaches peace and compassion, said recently in Germany that resistance to Chinese rule in Tibet must remain peaceful. He is optimistic that he will one day return to Tibet and believes that an evolving China that is no longer isolated will be able eventually to resolve issues with Tibet and help to develop it "while at the same time preserving our (sic ) own unique culture, including spirituality...." It may be some time, however, if the Chinese opt to stick with the hardline approach disallowing the Tibetan Buddhists the time-honored tradition of selecting the next Dalai Lama.

Made in China

2007-08-21T07:13:00.000-05:00

(UPDATE: 8/22/07, 11:00am - Now it's blankets.)

(UPDATE: 8/22/07, 3:35pm - And now it's chopsticks! Recycled without benefit of sanitizing by a Chinese company. Think about that next time you order General Tso's chicken.)

(ORIGINAL ARTICLE) -I suppose it was just a matter of time before the bubble of inexpensive, imported items from China burst. The first indication was last spring's pet food scare wherein an unknown number of cats and dogs sickened and died after eating contaminated food. This triggered a massive recall of pet food from retailers around the world. Unscrupulous Chinese suppliers used wheat gluten "enhanced" with melamine and other compounds to inflate its apparent protein value. It soon was revealed that similar practices occur in the production of food for humans as well, at least in China and other parts of Asia.

Soon came the warnings of toothpaste and cough syrup from China containing a deadly chemical, diethylene glycol (DEG), used in antifreeze and brake fluid. DEG is a thickening agent which replaced the more costly glycerin, commonly used in the manufacture drugs. In Panama in 2006 at least 51 people died after ingesting cough syrup laced with DEG. The FDA is now blocking the importation of Chinese toothpaste, and one would hope, cough syrup. Also, the FDA has warned drug companier, suppliers and pharmacists to make sure that any glycerin used is free of contamination.

Chinese tires also made the recall list. almost a half-million tires were defective due to the lack of a key safety feature. Many of these were sold in the US.

This was recently followed by several toy recalls. Due to excessive amounts of lead,Fisher-Price recalled 83 types of toys made, at least in part, in China, Big Birds, Elmos, Doras to name a few. This was followed by Mattel Inc. issuing on August 14, 2007, a a recall for 9 million Chinese-made toys, some with small magnets, some also with potentially dangerous levels of lead paint. *
Now we have to watch out for items of clothing. New Zealand is inspecting Chinese-made clothing supposedly containing high levels of formaldehyde which can cause skin irritations and possibly cancer. Several parents have reported problems with their childrens' nightclothes causing rashes.

What to make of all this? What seems to be a coincidence at this point must cause manufacturers and governments to be taking a closer look at Chinese and other imports. They must ramping up investigatory agencies to prevent similar dangerous items from entering the marketplace. One hopes that any deviations from safety standards will be spotted among the items examined. But what of the items not examined? Let's face it. It is impossible to thoroughly or even cursorily examine each shipment of goods from China or anywhere else for that matter.

In the final analysis, it is up to each consumer to protect himself from unsafe imports, just as it is in every other aspect of his life. Since food items don't list countries of origin for each nutritional component, it makes sense to buy only from trusted food manufacturers, if one must buy prepared food. Although growing one's own food may be the best protection against poisoning, due to accident, neglect, or criminal intent, that is no longer possible for the vast majority of people. Careful selection of foods is possible. Buying locally grown produce, when in season, careful investigation of meat and dairy producers, as well as scrupulously clean kitchen practices, should take care of most food threats. We must rely on our government agencies to do the investigations for us. Governmental representatives must be reminded of their obligation to
ensure that these agencies are well-funded and well-managed to protect the country from unscrupulous or just careless suppliers of food and other consumer goods.

Even with adequate governmental inspections, some items one has to take on trust. Because no one can make his own car tires, trusted manufacturers will have to do. (Remember the Firestone tire recall in 2006 when at least 6 1/2 million tires were recalled?) Few people make their own clothing, much less weave their own fabric, or grow their own cotton. At the very least, purchasing items from trusted manufacturers can lend one some sense of safety. Unfortunately for all, the recent experiences with "Made in China" items has lent some more credence to the old saw "you get what you pay for."

(Remember playing with toy soldiers made of lead? We probably chewed on them also. My father had a collection of magnets that I played with quite often. It never occurred to me to eat them.)

Clueless in Iowa

2007-08-12T16:41:00.000-05:00

From Lex:

"The more he talks, the more painfully obvious it is that he's clueless."

From George Will:

"Sen. Barack Obama recently told some Iowa farmers that prices of their crops are not high enough, considering what grocers are charging for other stuff: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Living near the University of Chicago, Obama has perhaps experienced this outrage, but Iowans, who have no Whole Foods stores, might remember 1987, when Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis urged Iowa farmers to diversify by raising endive. Said a farmer to a Boston reporter, "Your governor scared me just a hair."

From Sloan:

"Arugula? Will all the Iowa farmers go out and plant arugula next Spring? Cows like grass and corn. Do they like arugula? What would their milk or beef taste like? Not to mention that if very many farmers start growing arugula, what happens to the price? Economics must not have been his strong suit. Jeesh!"

Next we'll see him with an army helmet peeking out of a gun turret.

Cowardy Lions

2007-08-04T20:11:00.000-05:00

Last night, the Senate passed the McConnell-Bond bill (S. 1927) adjusting laws pertaining to the Foreighn Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA). This intent of this legislation is to clear up debate concerning laws currently on the books regarding monitoring terrorists who are on foreign soil. This will allow the administration to look into intelligence situations without the delays associated with waiting for judicial review.

However one feels about this, it is dismaying to find that the final vote was 60-22 for passage. Some Senators didn't find it necessary to vote one way or the other, preferring to straddle the fence and avoid being shunned by those on either side of the issue. Such moral cowardice has no place in government, especially in a time of war and terrorism.

Shame on them.

UPDATE:
The House of Representatives followed suit with a 227-183 vote to allow warrantless eavesdropping on foreigners when the communications pass through equipment located in the United States.

A Dog's Life - Part 2

2007-08-03T09:52:00.001-05:00

In March, I wrote about the death of our beloved Kirby. We heard from many of you who, after expressing their condolences, related stories about their dogs. It seems that "dog people" love to tell and hear stories about dogs, and most of them have experienced the heartbreak and grief when one of these special animals passes away.

After much thought and consideration of all the pros and cons, we have taken the step of adopting another little bundle of energy into our lives. This past Sunday, we bought a cockapoo, black with a few white markings, a male named Knuckles. Such a macho name for this little guy. Our other dog, Miss Dixie, is not so sure we did the right thing. She tries to ignore and avoid him as much as possible, even when he is inviting her to play in his coy puppy way. He stalks her, lies in the grass and watches her. Then he moves up a few feet, lies down again, and watches some more. Eventually, he gets up and starts running in circles around her, yipping at her. She just watches him and then gets up and moves a few feet away. Sooner or later they will be chasing each other around the backyard and playing tug of war and all the puppy games.

It's been four years since we had a puppy. We tend to forget just how much work they are initially. For relatively painless housetraining, I always take puppies outside whenever they do anything new, right after they wake up, after a play time, after they eat or drink; it's straight outside, saying "Go potty" over and over until they do what they are supposed to do, and then it's high praise and cuddles. We keep our puppies in kennels indoors for most of the time to take advantage of their natural instinct to keep their "bedrooms" clean. Consequently, I am taking Knuckles outside every half hour when he is awake, rain or shine. We also have sleigh bells hanging on our back door. Each time we go outside the bells ring. In a few weeks, he will start ringing the bells himself to have us open the door for him. The bells are loud enough to be heard throughout the house. It is great (also a free burglar alarm) and the older dog helps teach the new one.

It's been in the 90's this week and so I am frequently sweaty and dirty (who can resist getting down on all fours to play with a puppy?) and unable to keep my hair in any decent condition. My clothes are covered with little puppy footprints. This is going to be my life for the next few weeks until he starts to get the idea.

The initial cost of the puppy is just the beginning of the outlay of cash. We had all the puppy accoutrements, small kennel, bowls, leashes, collars, etc. I did get a new cushion for the kennel and a few new toys along with a puppy harness. Trips to the vet will add an expense. In a few months, Knuckles will join the ranks of neutered males and with luck we will be spared some of the more obnoxious male dog habits.

He's a cutie, for sure, and is already worming his way into our hearts. He will never replace our Kirby, just as Dixie didn't replace Jesse, who didn't replace Tasha, who didn't replace Pumpkin, or Zephyr, or Pooh-Bear. I could go on, and on, but I won't. Each dog is loved for his or her own personality quirks and lovability. Our hearts have enough love to go around for all of them.

Something Lighter for a Summer Friday

2007-07-27T16:07:00.000-05:00

Our town has been reviving its entrepreneurial spirit lately with some new activities to bring more people into the center of town and to enhance the feeling of "community" and boost the local economy at the same time.

The past few years have seen an "Artisans' and Antiques Fair" one Saturday each June. This year we had the biggest turnout with more booths than ever before showcasing a wide variety of antiques and handcrafted items, from pottery to woven goods,from iron scultures to paintings. This coincided with two other events held in close proximity, a cruise-in, and the grand opening of the Tippecanoe Farmer's Market.

Streets were closed to traffic and two and a half blocks were dedicated to the Farmers' Market, a few to the cruise-in, and several more to the Fair. Luckily, Mother Nature smiled on the endeavor and gave us a magnificent day, with bright sunshine and mild temperatures. People flocked to town for all the events and, along with the items at the Fair, found at the market a delightful display of fruits and vegetables freshly picked by our local growers.

Each week as the summer progresses, the produce, artfully displayed in each booth, entices one to purchase more of this nutritious goodness than one expects to buy. People return home with arms full of delicious food items. There are booths with baked goods, ice cream, sandwiches, smoked turkey products (from a locan free-range turkey farm), fresh-cut flower arrangements from Spring Hill Nursery, pots of flowers for gardeners from another local grower, Springrun Farms, and even a young girl with a face painting booth to keep the little ones happy.

All in all, it is a great addition to our already great town, albeit a smaller one of approximately 9,000 people. The hard working volunteers who conceived and carried out this idea are to be congratulated. Their hard work, sacrificing every Saturday, has brought more smiling faces into town each week than I have seen in a long time.

Is it Hotter or Colder? The Boy is Crying Wolf Again

2007-07-26T09:45:00.000-05:00

I noticed two diametrically opposed things today. One is a report from PIRG (Public Interest Research Group, a noble sounding name for a leftist organization founded in the 1960's by Ralph Nader) that claims that "Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures the last 30 years, according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country."

The other is a graph from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospoheric Administration, part of the US Department of Commerce, the "weather people", that shows the average temperature in Las Vegas for the past six decades. Specificallly, the average in the 1940"s was 81.3 degrees, and in the 1990's, 79.9 degrees. Yes, in 1960's it was 79.2, the 1970's 79.7, but for the past two decades, it has remained static, at 79.9.

At about the same time, I noticed a news report by hurricane forecasters revising downward their prediction for the current hurricane season.

Forecaster reduces 2007 hurricane prediction
Published on Thursday, July 26, 2007
By Kelly Riddell

WASHINGTON, USA (Bloomberg): WSI Corp., a weather-forecasting company, has reduced the number of hurricanes it's predicting this year because of cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the North Atlantic.

The 2007 season is expected to deliver a total of six hurricanes, instead of the eight previously forecast, Andover, Massachusetts-based WSI said. An average season yields six. The 2005 season, which brought Katrina, Rita and billions of dollars in damage, generated a record 15 hurricanes.

"Sea-surface temperatures really haven't warmed like they normally do this time of year," WSI senior meteorologist Jim Klein said in an interview. "We can't pinpoint any specific reason, but we're not seeing the tropical development like we've anticipated."

This is in start contrast to the advisory given in April predicting a "very active" 2007 Hurricane Season.

By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 03 April 2007 10:07 am ET

The Atlantic basin will likely see a very active hurricane season this year, though not as active as in 2004 and 2005, according to a well-known Colorado State University forecasting team.

"The activity of these two years was unusual, but within the natural bounds of hurricane variation," said hurricane forecasting guru William Gray, who issued his first seasonal forecast 24 years ago.

The latest forecast upgrades the team's earlier predictions for the 2007 hurricane season. The team now expects 17 named storms to form in the Atlantic, with nine of those storms becoming hurricanes. Five of the hurricanes are expected to develop into major storms (Categories 3, 4, and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale) with wind speeds of 111 mph or greater.

The earlier 2007 forecast estimated 14 named storms and 3 hurricanes.

Now, what is the average person supposed to think after continually reading such contradictory information in the MSM? Are there no experts? Are the "experts" just guessing? Does politics play a part in predictions and press releases? No Sh&* Sherlock.

The unfortunate result of this "crying wolf" is that the public is turning a deaf ear to the science community. The entire global warming "debate" is a case in point. Scientist with axes to grind and jobs to keep will suck up to whatever political entity seems to be gaining the upper hand. No ordinary citizen with a smattering of science education and no access to the lastest technological analysis will be able to make heads or tales of any scientific situation that faces him.

One of the worst developments of the last few decades has been the politicization of science. Theories have replaced fact. Computer models have been taken as gospel. Few people in the MSM acknowledge the fact that the nature of climate is a composite of so many variables, both within and without our humble atmosphere, and far beyond our "poor power to add or detract" that an accurate computer model is a figment of some scientist's and his political agenda's imagination.

It is so very disheartening.

No New Persimmons!

2007-07-24T15:45:00.000-05:00

I am giving up persimmons. Since they are not a fruit locally grown, and have to be flown, and trucked to Ohio, I am going to do my part to ease global warming and the energy crisis by giving them up. Read my lips - no new persimmons.

Actually, I am taking my cue from Elizabeth Edwards (Mrs. John), first lady-wannabe. She has announced that she is giving up tangerines since they are not grown in the local orchards of North Carolina and the environs. I guess she means to include oranges, lemons, limes, and grapefruit as well. And bananas. And lettuce in the winter. Anyway, she has discovered the virtues of fighting global warming by buying locally grown produce. Why, local tomatoes taste better that the cardboard ones from the grocery store anyway. (That makes it less than a sacrifice, but I won't tell her.)

Of course, her palatial estate is large enough for a greenhouse where she could grow her own citrus fruits.

Maybe she should check where her clothes are made. She may find that her silk blouse is made in Sri Lanks, the buttons from Guam, the zipper from Japan, etc. She'll have trouble finding clothes made locally. With the exception of wool, (I assume there are some local sheep) most, if not all, of the fabrics in North Carolina are imported.

I think she opened a can of worms. Those you can get in her neighborhood.

Back from Vacation

2007-07-21T12:07:00.000-05:00

Two weeks is a long time to try to avoid the news and keep away from all the blogs and news sources. I needed a break from the daily immersion in the nonsense into which our political system has evolved, thanks in large part to the main stream media (MSM) and their self-important spinning and censoring the news. By censoring, I mean the choices the MSM makes every day about what to report and what not to report. Their spins are obvious. I can listen to a speech or comment made by a politician or government official and then hear something quite different from the media's description of what I myself had just heard. Oh well. By the time they figure out what's going on, no one will be reading the newspapers or watching the news. I guess the MSM will have to be re-invented.

Some thoughts since I last posted:

(1) On Hillary - This week I heard on the radios that some people think Hillary is not acting enough like a woman, John Edwards is not acting enough like a man, and Barak Obama isn't black enough. Bizarre. However, it must have bothered the Hillary camp somewhat because they sent out their big gun Bill Clinton who defended Hill by saying that he didn't think she was acting like a man, just like a leader. Then two days later she shows up on CSPAN or someplace wearing a low-cut shirt and showing some cleavage (GASP!). I guess she set out to prove that she IS a woman after all. I question the timing. You rarely see her in anything the slightlest bit revealing. Her handlers choose her wardrobe very carefully and she has Hollywood's best and brightest to assist her presentations. I know, it is a bit catty of me to even mention this.

(2) On the immigration bill - Now is the time for Republicans and other concerned Americans to jump on the good ideas that abound concerning immigration, legal and illegal. First, secure the borders. Then enforce the laws that are on the books and that are being ignored. Deal with each part of the problem individually without an omnibus bill that is too comprehensive to pass. Don't let nothing get done at all. Make the presidential candidates deal with it, debate it and present their ideas.

(3) On Huffington Post, Penelope Trunk has an article titled "It Doesn't Matter that Journalists Misquote Everyone." In it she complains that she's tired of people saying that so-and-so has been misquoted. In her mind, one can misquote with wild abandon because no two people see the same thing the same way. Ok, if you're a fiction writer, I can go along with that. Reporters, however, have a different purpose. Whatever they may feel about it, reporters are supposed to stick to the "who, what, when, where, and how" of a story. Editorialists, or OP-ED writers as they are called now, have the leeway to present their own bird's eye view. She can forget the rationalization, in my opinion. No one should pay any attention to anything she writes from now on. 'Nuff said.

(4) "The Fancy Food Show hit New York last week, and we spotted a welcome trend amid the countless aisles of confections and high-end preserves: Cane sugar is making a comeback. Since the 1970s, high-fructose corn syrup has dominated the sweetener market—its low cost has made it difficult for manufacturers to resist. But ethanol has changed the equation, and customer demand has sparked a return to a classic." This is from a weekly online email from Ruth Reichl at Gourmet Magazine. What is it they say about the road to Hell? Paved with good intentions, I believe. All those ethanol instead of oil pushers who complain about $3/gallon gasoline are going to be complaining about $3/can of corn soon. And anything else that will be used for ethanol. Carrots, $3 each. Looking for green peppers? Sorry, that field is growing corn now. Hamburger? $3 each at McDonalds. Cow's have to be fed and pastures are growing corn for ethanol. Sorry.

Let's just drill for oil, off-shore, on-shore, Arctic, Texas, wherever. Stop feeding the sheiks and start feeding the United States cheaper corn. If we don't, food prices will soar. Maybe that will solve the obesity problem, at least.

The Three "R's"

2007-06-29T14:28:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts on a busy Friday, all on topics starting with the letter R.

1st R - Rushdie - The British have seen fit to honor Salman Rushdie by bestowing a knighthood upon him. He is now Sir Rushdie, I guess, so named for his contribution to literature. He is now on the same level with the Islamists as the infamous Danish cartoons in that there are renewed cries for the fatwa calling for his assassination. He has a bountry of several million dollars on his head. Gotta love that religion of peace.

2nd R - Reporters - The MSNBC website had a report the other day from one of their Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, Bill Dedman, that consisted of his research into the political donations made by journalists. Does it surprise anyone that there is a definite tilt to the left among the sensitivities of the MSM reporters? 125 journalists gave to the Democrats, 16 to Republicans. Two, in the interest of being fair and balanced, I guess, gave to both. However, most reporters were too busy, writing checks perhaps, to report on this fact.

3rd R - Russians - The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! God, I loved that movie! Anyway, The Russians have just discovered the North Pole and have planted their figurative flag right smack dab on the pole itself, claiming the land, the oil, the diamonds, and the snow, I guess, for Mother Russia. Santa Claus, forever after to be referred to only as Saint Nicholas, will not have to move. Oh, Canada.... Look out.

--------

That's all, folks. I'll be taking a holiday the next week or so. Family will be visiting and I must keep my nose away from the computer screen at least some of the time. Posts may be few and skimpy. However, if I get really fired up, I'll find a way to express my humble opinions, one way or the other.

A Victory for the American People

2007-06-28T15:23:00.000-05:00

After hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of phone calls, faxes, and emails to the Senate offices, the powers that be heard the protest that stretched across party lines and closed off any consideration of the Senate bill 1639. The final tally on the closure vote was 46 to 53, 14 short of the 60 needed "Yea" votes. It was even 5 short of a simple majority. I sent a heartfelt "Thank You" to those senators who voted "Nay" today.

When Congress and the President decide to enforce the current immigration laws, secure our borders, and prevent the wholesale looting of our social systems by illegal immigrants and their familial "chain" to follow, then they can once again address the other pressing problems such as:

1. How to deal with the current illegal immigrant population
2. How to streamline immigration requirements for both skilled and unskilled workers
3. Whether or not granting amnesty to illegals is fair to those who aspire to legal immigration and citizenship
4. How to justify to US citizens the continued granting of free medical care to illegal immigrants, free education to their
children, and other costly social services and privileges
5. How to further seal off the Mexican and Canadian borders to prevent the entrance of terrorists and other criminals
6. How to encourage the assimilation of immigrants, including learning the English language.

I have faith that these issues can be dealt with by reasonable leaders of our country and that solutions that are more fair to our citizens can be found. The inclusion in our society of legal immigrants can continue to make our country strong, vibrant and secure. The priority, however, should be for the citizens of the United States, not for the citizens of other countries who do not wish to follow the legal avenues available for those who wish to share in the American Dream. We welcome those who demonstrate their willingness to follow our laws by adhering to those that currently control immigration.

Open Letter to Sen. Lott and Others

2007-06-27T11:31:00.000-05:00

(This is the content of the letter I sent today to Sen. Trent Lott. Variations were sent to the Senators and Congressmen from my state and others.)

Dear Senator Lott,

I urge you and your fellow Senators to vote against the outrageous immigration bill that is due to be reconsidered in the Senate and House of Representatives. I have never seen Congressmen turn their backs on such a vast majority of American people and their wishes as they have on this issue.

Nearly 80% of the population of the United States is against most of the provisions of this bill and yet you and your cohorts continue to support it, disregarding the opinions of the electorate. I understand that the populace will not agree with its representatives in Congress 100% of the time, but on an issue so crucial to the future of the United States there must be some consideration of the will of the people.

By the way, I am not a bigot, nor am I influenced by the talk radio that you disparaged recently. I hear no complaints from you about the one-sidedness of the other media, the press, and broadcast television, as well as many of the cable TV networks. If talk radio has any presence worth noting, it is because it stands alone to provide an outlet for conservative thought.

Thank you for your attention to this extremely important matter. Do not let down your State and your Country.

Sincerely,

Sloan Morganstern

Hillary Barack Ticket?

2007-06-25T13:25:00.001-05:00

Had a discussion with my neighbor yesterday about the possibilty of a Hillary and Barack ticket for '08 presidential election. He said he didn't think Hillary would go for it, but Barack might if he were to get the nod for the top spot.

I don't think that's posible for '08, Barack in the #1 position, that is. He's too new, too much a shooting star that has already reached it's peak and now is going to cruise more or less downward for a while. Remember how infatuated Hollywood was, with all its fundraisers and spouting about Obama this and Obama that. Well, now the King has spoken. Bill Clinton and his cronies must have had a good long talk with Spielberg and made him an offer he couldn't refuse because now he proclaims his supports for Mrs. Clinton. Well, well. What a surprise.

Now that Hillary can be assured of the best and brightest Hollywood has to offer for her campaign ads (the Soprano's knock-off last week was a toe in the water) Obama had better be scrambling for some pros to help him along.

I think that the Top Democrats would be afraid to scare off some of the more conservative Democrat voters with a ticket headed by a woman and having a black man for the Veep position. Obama would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding Hillary as his Veep candidate.

What do you think?

Lake Inferior?

2007-06-18T20:42:00.001-05:00

"Lake Superior, the world's largest freshwater lake, has dropped to its lowest level in 81 years. The water is 20 inches below average and a foot lower than just a year ago."

The above quote is from USA Today.

If that is true, and it falls in line with what the climate change scare-mongers are telling us about anthropogenic global warming, my only question is:

WHAT CAUSED LAKE SUPERIOR TO BE AS LOW AS IT WAS 81 YEARS AGO?

Too Much to Hope For

2007-06-18T10:49:00.000-05:00

Drudge found this article about the BBC commissioning a report on its content which criticized the BBC for its liberal bias. Plenty of examples are given in the article supporting this claim, including instances of overt campaigning for liberal causes within television comedies and dramas, a series of shows resembling propaganda, and "America-bashing."

Additional findings report the "BBC's failure to reflect the broader views of British people", a devotion to political correctness, and antipathy toward the more conservative values held by millions of British citizens. Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, which published the Daily Mail, commented that "The BBC is consumed by the kind of political correctness that is actually patronisingly contemptuous of what it describes as ordinary people."

I have often read of the liberal leanings of the BBC. The US televised BBC programs that I have seen often show a subtle slant to the left, even in period shows of earlier eras. That is one reason that I no longer support PBS which is the vehicle for televising most of the BBC productions in the US. PBS is guilty of the same prejudice in much of its programming, from the multicultural preachings of Sesame Street to the ugly motivation of Bill Moyer's liberal productions.

It would be nice to see a similar impartial survey of PBS and other mainstream television programming in the United States. Never happen.

A Parallel?

2007-06-18T07:04:00.000-05:00

Back in the spring, at the height of the French presidential campaign, there was excited talk among the left about the possibility of both France and the United States being led by women, namely Segolene Royal and Hillary Clinton. If only Great Brittain had groomed a liberal Thatcher, preferably one more chic, what a triumvirate that would be, if one can use that word referring to women.

Royal, "Sego" as she is known, was certainly the darling of the media, which had been proclaiming a good chance of her victory months in advance. A poor showing in the debate with conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, and other instances of "style over subtstance" led to her defeat to Sarkozy, May 6, 2007.

Segolene Royal was the amorous "partner" of Francois Hollande, head of the French Socialist party. In fact, they have four children together, in spite of never marrying. The handsome couple was often seen on the covers of magazines, often frolicking on the beach, Sego clad in a skimpy bikini. Rumors had surfaced of non-marital discord, which was denied by the power couple on the far side of the Atlantic. Perhaps the rumors were part of a vast right-wing conspriacy. The campaign continued with Hollande's full support. Now, however, it seems the rumors are true. Sego has kicked Hollande out of the "family home" to "live out his love story" elsewhere, as she puts it in an announcement to the press which itself has drawn criticism for taking attention from the fact that the Socialist party fared better than feared in the Sunday's elections for the National Assembly.

Now the question becomes how far does the parallel go between Royal and Clinton? Both are the female side of a liberal power couple, both have campaigned for the presidency of their country. Both have philandering "husbands". Both have denied the evidence of such philandering. If Hillary is not the Democrat's nominee or if she is and loses the election, will she tell Bill to "live out his love story elsewhere?"

It's pretty much agreed by political junkies that the Clinton's have stayed married for political reasons, first for his and now for hers. Their's has been a partnership of convenience in spite of the inconvenience of it at times. They are apart much more than together, with Bill Clinton travelling worldwide raking in the dough from speaking engagements. Who knows whether or not his sessions with Jesse Jackson and the other religious advisors were able to convince Bill of the error of his ways? The MSM media is not interested in pursuing him 'round the world to see with whom he might rendezvous. Perhaps he can visit France and console Segolene Royal.

Letter to Sen. Lott

2007-06-16T03:49:00.000-05:00

Dear Senator Lott,

Although not a Mississippi resident, I respect your long service to our country and wanted to contact you regarding your stand on the current discussion on immigration reforms. I was disappointed in your statements regarding talk radio being a problem. I assume your remarks were made hastily and upon reflection you will issue an apology to talk radio hosts and listeners who have the best interests of the Unites States at heart and believe in their right to exercise their free speech on the airwaves. Your comment smacks of a desire to curb their influence on the current political situation regarding immigration. I feel that an informed electorate with pros and cons of each issue freely discussed in an open marketplace is a valuable contribution to the continuation of our democratic republic. I am sure that in your heart of hearts you feel the same way as I. Please let the American people know that this is true.

Also consider the gross unfairness of the current immigration bill about to be reopened for debate next week. This bill is unfair to those who are complying with current laws and facing long waits, financial hardships, just to enter the US legally. It is also unfair to American citizens who, looking ahead to the possibility of few if any social security funds, medicare funds, education funds, etc., to be told that these dwindling resources will be bestowed on illegal immigrants and their family members. It is unfair to the border guards who try to enforce the law and have the knowlege that in the future and very illegals they are trying to prevent from entering the US will be legalized. How demoralizing for them!

The American people are smart enough to recognize what a shoddy scheme this bill is, pure pandering to minorities, an unfair proposal to those obeying the current laws, and a drain on resources supplied by hard working legal Americans.

Stop this bill in its tracks. Enforce current laws first and take more time to develop workable, fair solutions to the situation at hand.

This is especially important when considering the needs of national security in this time of Islamic terror plans.

Thank you for your time.

Sloan

Jolie and Pelosi

2007-06-14T13:06:00.000-05:00

Here's a joke: What do Angelina Jolie and Nancy Pelosi have in common? They're both hypocrites. OK, I know it's not funny but it is a joke. These two beauts are gifts that just keep giving. First, Ms Jolie

I try to stay away from the celebrity crap but every now and then one of these self-important hypocrites just lays one right in front of me there and I can't help but try to hit it out of the park.

Angelina Jolie was trying to ban certain news outlets (namely Fox and affiliates) from interviewing her and lining the red carpet at the premiere of her movie "A Mighty Heart", a movie supposed to support "Reporters without Borders". I guess that excludes the borders of the red carpet, since she felt that she was entitled to prevent Fox news people (if you can call entertainment reporters "news people") from experiencing her sainted grace-filled presence.

In fact, all reporters were at first required to sign contracts stipulating what could be asked of Ms Jolie and what would happen if the reporters reneged on their promise. Enough reporters had the gumption to refuse to sign and the studio was perturbed as well . Jolie then cancelled all print interviews.

See this from fox news online

Now, for Ms Pelosi. It seems that she has forgotten her campaign pledge to clean up the House (remember? "sometimes it takes a woman to clean the house") and its members tendency to play fast and loose with gifts received and travel expenditures being reimbursed. The Hill reports that she sees no problem with a lawmakers' adult children accompanying them on junkets without having to reimburse the government. So much for her pledge.

Neptune Rising

2007-06-04T16:41:00.000-05:00

It seems that yet another planet is rife with gas-guzzling SUV's that little green men are using to cruise "Big Blue". Yes, Neptune is suffering the same fate as Earth, and Mars, and who knows how many other orbiting orbs out there in the sky, with temperatures rising, rising, and threatening the health and well-being of who or whatever lives on them.

But wait, wait. If there are no little green men and little green SUV's on Neptune, what in the world, or out of the world could be causing this crisis? Theory No. 1: you and me and our anthropogenic ways. Theory No. 2: the sun.

Now, Neptune is the eighth planet from the sun and a long, long, long way from Earth. We must be emitting some mighty powerful carbon dioxide to go that far and affect a planet that is about four times as large in diameter as the Earth. I'll wager that Old Sol has something to do with it. A few other people agree with me and are willing to come forward and confess it. Investor's Business Daily names a few experts who dare to swim against the tide of politically correct science. Look for them on the unemployment line in the near future. They shall be grant-less until science kicks politics out of the equation.

Photo Credit

Relax! Only 1 in 4 Want to Kill You

2007-05-23T11:58:00.000-05:00

Gotta love this post from Ace of Spades regarding a recent poll by the Pew Research group.

If the Pew group surveyed white people in the south and found than only 10% were prejudiced against blacks, would the headlines say "Most US Whites Reject Prejudice"? Nah, they would be saying "One in Ten Hate Blacks".

A Sane Rocker

2007-05-19T14:08:00.000-05:00

Who would have thought that a voice of at least partial reason would come from someone in the entertainment industry, a rocker, no less?

Follow that with this. (From the Timaru Herald)

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

I just hope I live long enough to see this whole charade exposed for the anti-capitalist, anti-American, scam that it is. Unfortuately, it takes advantage of the gullible who truly think they are making the world a better place. Better than what, is the real question.

More here.

Pet Food Scare - New Concerns for Human Food

2007-05-15T11:45:00.000-05:00

After the recent pet food scare involving unscrupulous Chinese food producers adding melamine to increase the protein count in what flour used in pet foods, one must stop and think about the potential consequences of similar occurences happening in the production of food meant for human consumption.

An article from the Wall Street Journal Online by Nicolas Zamiska, May 9, 2007, exposes the daring and dangerous behavior of some food vendors in Asia.

One can only hope that this type of activity isn't shared by those exporting ingredients to US food producers. The FDA is ill-prepared to deal testing of the vast quantity of imported ingredients. Only a sampling can and ever will be examined for purity.

HONG KONG -- Formaldehyde, which has been linked to cancer, has legitimate uses in adhesives and embalming. But in Indonesia, Sutikno, a 35-year-old tofu maker in south Jakarta who goes by one name, uses it to keep the tofu he sells fresh.

"Formaldehyde is magic. There is no comparison," he said on a recent afternoon at the market. Last year, he switched briefly to a legal preservative, but his bean curd went bad in less than 24 hours. As for his customers, he doesn't tell them he uses formaldehyde. "There is no complaint," Mr. Sutikno said.

Across Asia, small-scale food manufacturers and street vendors often boost profits by using cheap but toxic chemicals as sweeteners, dyes and preservatives. While the most egregious examples generally involve food for local consumption, dangerous additives occasionally end up in foods exported to the U.S. and other Western countries, highlighting the scope of the problems regulators face. A January rally in Jakarta protested the use of formaldehyde in foods.

"Human ignorance as well as greed knows no bounds," says Gerald Moy, manager of the World Health Organization's office that monitors chemicals in the global food supply.

The pet-food contamination that killed and sickened cats and dogs in the U.S. has called into question the safety of imports from China. Yesterday China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said on its Web site that Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. and Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Co. exported the toxic ingredients which contained melamine, a chemical used in fire retardants. The companies weren't available to comment this morning.

Separately, U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials yesterday said they found melamine in Canadian-manufactured fish meal containing what was labeled as wheat gluten imported from China. The officials said they are looking at fish meal imported not only from China but also from other countries. Melamine-contaminated ingredients found in pet foods were actually wheat flour, rather than wheat gluten or rice protein concentrate as labels indicated, the officials added.

The FDA has the authority to inspect food shipments, but because of the sheer volume of imports, only a fraction of food entering the country is inspected. "Our focus is based on where we know the risks are," David Acheson, the FDA's assistant commissioner for food protection, said in an interview. "It's not a strategy to test everything that arrives at the ports." But the FDA says it is rethinking its strategic approach to targeting potential risks and allocating resources. It is also working with the Chinese watchdog group to search for long-term solutions, Mr. Acheson said.

With the discovery of melamine in animal food, the agency is considering a new safety system for animal feed that would go beyond the current focus on preventing mad-cow disease and salmonella.

In Asia, unsafe additives in foods for human consumption have long been a problem. Some street vendors use an industrial dye for textiles called Sudan Red to make their coconut and sugar-cane drinks look more attractive. "You could just see the beverages, they sort of glow, because these dyes are really quite intense," says the WHO's Mr. Moy. Last November, Chinese authorities discovered that poultry farmers in Hebei province had been using one of the Sudan Red dyes, believed to cause cancer, to color the feed of their ducks and redden the yolks of the eggs, which sell at a premium price.

In 2003, Sudan Red was found in hot-chili products imported from India to the U.K. Products containing the dye were also recalled in Canada and South Africa. Over the next two years, the contamination snowballed. By March 2005, 580 products had been withdrawn in the U.K.

In March this year, the FDA stopped 215 shipments from mainland China for a variety of problems. One shipment of dried dates was considered filthy; plums contained unsafe sweeteners; and oranges had pesticide residues. A few dozen also had unsafe color additives. But there is often a disconnect between what regulators charge and companies respond. One of the shipments the FDA refused was apple chips from Hebei Dongfang Green Tree Food Co. in China, which may have contained unsafe color additives.

Pan Yanjun, the company's vice president, confirmed in a telephone interview yesterday that his company shipped some apple chips to the U.S. in March for a natural food show, but said that the FDA approved the shipment. "We never dye the apple chips," he said.

There is little evidence that foods contaminated by unsafe preservatives are being shipped abroad. But unauthorized use is widespread in Asia.

Formaldehyde, for instance, is often used as a preservative in Asia and other parts of the world where refrigeration is scarce. In late 2005, the Indonesian National Agency for Drug and Food Control tested 161 samples of fish, shrimp, squid, tofu, and noodles produced and sold across six cities and found that 64 of the samples tested positive for formaldehyde.

Another problem is a group of chemicals called borates, including boric acid. Borates were widely used in food products in the U.S. and other countries a century ago to improve the texture of food as well as preserve it. Most countries today prohibit its use as a food additive because it is toxic at high levels. Now, the chemical is mainly used in insecticides, flame retardants and cleaning products.

In March and April of 2006, the Malaysian Health Ministry tested 387 samples of rice noodles, 20 of which were found to contain boric acid, according to Dr. Abdul Rahim Mohamad, the director of the food safety and quality division within Malaysia's Health Ministry.

In Thailand, Peerapong Suksaweng, an official with the country's Food and Drug Administration, runs spot checks on street vendors, supermarkets and farmers' markets. Each day, his mobile inspection unit -- one of 26 throughout the country -- checks produce for insecticides and chemical additives such as borates and formaldehyde.

He has found street vendors who have added borates to minced pork and meatballs to keep them fresh. In high quantities, Mr. Peerapong says, "people who eat [that] could vomit blood or die."

Al Qaeda in Iraq??? Nah....

2007-05-15T08:47:00.000-05:00

This NY Post article lends credence to the fact, oft declared by President Bush and others on both sides of the aisle, that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. It's own declaration about holding the missing US troops proves the point.

However, I take exception to the paragraph that states

"Every death in service to America is a tragedy, but - as the president has said many times in the past - it is better to be fighting al Qaeda in the alleyways of Baghdad than the streets of New York."

We will, initially at least, be fighting them in the shopping malls, hospitals, school, office buildings, anywhere they want to ply their terrorist tactics for the most impact. That should scare the bejeesus out of every one of us. It does me.

Al Qaeda knows full well it cannot militarily defeat the United States. They will wage their battles one by one in the hometowns of America, preying on civilians in the most gruesome ways possible. They will also wage war with their willing accomplices in the Democrat party and the media.

Ah, the media. Ask yourself why you never see videos of the World Trade Center attacks. How often did you see photos of Abu Grab prisoners being "tortured"? Why is so little attention given to the beheadings of civilians as well as the military? Why so little mention of Saddam's mass murders?

Pulling the troops out of Iraq too soon could only have one consequence according to this report from Reuters.

A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq...

A former head of Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 described Gunaratna's analysis as convincing.

"Clearly al Qaeda are focusing on Iraq now, and focusing on some sort of propaganda victory over the United States," Sir Richard Dearlove told reporters.

"Fort Dix Six"

2007-05-12T07:41:00.000-05:00

In about 7 years, when the "Fort Dix Six" come to trial what will their leagal team use for a defense? It will probably be entrapment, or maybe excessive profiling. I can see it now - the poor Circuit City guy who was asked by the "FDS" to transfer a recording of their target practice and "Allah Akbaring" to DVD will be labeled as a government agent, free lancing to abuse the civil rights of the struggling minority immigrants. They wereonly just making a home movie. They didn't really mean to do any harm.

Yeah. Yeah.

The FBI informant who joined the group will be accused of leading these poor Muslims on a merry goose chase. He's the one who forced them to "pretend" to go along with his plans for destruction and death. He's the one who organized the purchase of weapons.

Just watch. The Democrats will decry such "Bushitler" tactics in the non-existent global war on terror and wind up defending all Muslim terrorists trapped in such a way.

By the way, did you notice how quickly the Democrats in the MSM all called these guys "homegrown"? Look again at their nationality and immigration status. No one can convince me that they were homegrown. Three of them were here illegally, smuggled in from Mexico. Four were Yugoslavian and one was from Jordan and one from Turkey.

Now, if they mean that the plot was hatched here in the US, O.K. We don't know yet whether or not these guys took marching orders from anybody. But this ragtag group, according to some, were not of "homegrown" fidelity or allegiance. Their allegiance was to violence, whether or not inspired by Islam. One at least was fond of calling Osama Bin Laden "Uncle Bennie."

How fortunate for the Fort Dix community, and others in New Jersey, as well as for the United States that these six terror suspects were stopped before they plied their terrible trade.

They Can't Let an Opportunity Go By...

2007-05-08T20:35:00.001-05:00

The New York Times can't resist a shot at President Bush and his Texas heritage even when it is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. See this article.

Here's a sample:

How does George W. Bush, a towel-snapping Texan who puts his feet on the coffee table, drinks water straight from the bottle and was once caught on tape talking with food in his mouth prepare for a state dinner with the queen?

Has the author of the above never snapped a towel at anyone? Had his/her feet on a coffee table, never drunk bottled water from a bottle? Probably few of us have ever had the opportunity to have been caught on tape talking with food in our mouths, but I know I am "guilty" of all of the above. I like to think that I would know how to behave in the company of the queen, the President, or even a New York Times columnist. What arrogance! What condescension! What obvious evidence of the press' fever-pitched determination to do all it can to belittle George W. Bush.

The Anchoress is another clear thinker who sees through this juvenile behavior on the part of the press. She asks the question, "...were Bill Clinton about to meet with Queen Elizabeth II, would we be reading the following in the NY Times?"

“How does William Jefferson Clinton - a pizza-box strewing Arkansas boy who puts his penis into interns mouths, invites “trailer park trash” to “kiss it,” and was once caught on tape laughing as he exited a funeral, only to quickly turn on the tears when he saw the press, prepare for a state dinner with the queen?”

Good question, but we would never see it. We would instead have been treated to glowing reports on the cosmopolitan behavior and exquisite manners of the most wonderful, intelligent man to have ever "graced" the White House.

The MSM has let the Bush Derangement Syndrome affect every aspect of their coverage of anything having the slightest bit to do with GWB's presidency. It is a sad commentary on what was once a respected industry. Readership is declining for almost every newspaper in the country. Why do the "powers that be" controlling the editorial bent of political articles fail to see that the half of the population that voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 might possibly be sick and tired of reading such obviously biased, and cruelly so at that, articles on a daily basis? They are signing their own death warrant, the death warrant for the newspaper industry.

Dirty Pool in Political Polls

2007-05-08T17:06:00.000-05:00

Ken Falkenstein sent me the following this morning. Another example, roughly #2,748,295, of media bias, and I'm not talking about conservative bias.

Ken says:

"It's no surprise that the lapdog liberal news media are campaigning for the Democrats like they always do, but "Newsweak" is going pretty far out of their way to do it. Their latest poll, in which Bush had a 28% approval rating and every top-tier Democrat presidential candidate outpolled every top-tier Republican, was a fix. "Newsweak" polled 50% more Democrats than Republicans. And the margin of error was over 7%! It stretches credulity to think that they didn't know how lopsided and lacking in credibility their poll was. Given that they featured it in their magazine and plastered it all over the news, the only plausible explanation is that they did it on purpose."

From Captain's Quarter blog:

Newsweek Practicing Early For Poll Follies

Newsweek publishes a breathless account of how George Bush's approval rating has dropped to 28%, and how leading Democrat contenders now outpoll the Republicans across the board for the 2008 presidential race. Coincidence, Newsweek asks? They should have asked that question of their pollsters:

It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups. ...
Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll’s margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.

Yes, this would be a devastating poll, if one could rely on it. It contradicts nearly every other poll, which has consistently shown Giuliani beating Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. How could Newsweek get the results they have published?

Well, for one thing, it helps when you poll 50% more Democrats than Republicans. If one reads the actual poll results all the way to the end, the penultimate question shows that the sample has 24% Republicans to 36% Democrats. Compare that to the information given by Newsweek's NBC partners in February, which showed that party affiliation had shifted from a difference of less than a percentage point to a gap of 3.9 points -- 34.3% to 30.4%, with 33.9% independents.

Does it really surprise Newsweek that a sample where half again as many Democrats as Republicans were polled tend to prefer Democrats for President? Do they find it all that surprising that George Bush isn't terribly popular when surveys oversample Democrats? They knew that the poll had to have some problems; the margins of error for the poll were 7% for the Democrats and 8% for the Republicans, quite high for these kinds of polls.

Newsweek apparently doesn't employ people like editors and fact checkers before rushing their analyses to print. Thankfully, the blogosphere can take the time and effort to have these layers of correction so that we can provide the best possible information to our readership."

Thanks to Ken for this article.Yes, the blogosphere will be on full alert the next year and a half. But unless what is uncovered is printed or broadcast in the MSM, it is just more preaching to the choir. With the lefts willing accomplices at their beck and call, the Dhimmicrats seem to have it well in hand. I don't see any knight in shining armor coming in to rescue the floundering (and foundering) Republican party.

I don't know why polls are seen to be so important. I guess the nation is full of sheep who can't be bothered to find out details for themselves and so take whatever conventional wisdom they can glean from idiotic polls as God's truth. As ignorant as a lot of them are, thanks to government schools and teachers from government schools, they wouldn't know how to decipher the finer points of poll questions anyway.

Michael Moore's New Movie

2007-05-03T07:32:00.000-05:00

Michael Moore has a new movie about the "wondrous, amazing, first-rate," free Cuban health care system thanks to Fidel Castro's paternalistic love for the Cuban people. You can read an article by Fred Thompson about it here. I posted an article about this very subject earlier.

Thompon asks, "What is it that leads people to value theoretically "free" health care, even when it's lousy or nonexistent, over a free society that actually delivers health care? You might have to deal with creditors after you go to the emergency ward in America, but no one is denied medical care here. I guarantee even the poorest Americans are getting far better medical services than many Cubans."

If Cuba's "state of the art" medical care is so doggone great why did Castro have to fly in a surgeon and equipment from Spain during his illness in 2006?

America's First Black Female President

2007-04-28T07:51:00.001-05:00

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

"I think America is ready for a multilingual president," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

The New York senator—who said she's been thinking about critics who've suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala.—noted that she's split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.

But observers have long noted her tendency to speak Southern primarily in front of black audiences, as she did with Sharpton last week and at a civil rights commemoration in Selma in March.

-------------------

Just imagine what uproar, what utter revulsion would occur if Giuliani, or Romney or even The Maverick were to affect such a "twang" when addressing black voters. I can see the accusations now, "How racist! Condescending! Phony, phony, phony!"

Somehow, when it's a Democrat, especially when it's a Clinton, the absolutely contrived accent is considered charming.

Next we'll see her downing some black eyed peas, greens, and soakin' up the pot likker with some cornbread. Facing the camera of course.

A General Failure

2007-04-27T13:01:00.000-05:00

Army Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, May, 2007 Armed Forces Journal

"For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress."

This article about the failures of American generals in Iraq is quite interesting. It presents a view of the war from a different perspective than one often presented. If the author is correct, more needs to be changed at DOD than just the individual at the head of the department.

Comparing the situation in Iraq with that in Vietnam thirty years ago, with the US military facing the possibility of defeat due to an insurgency, Lt. Col.Paul Yingling points to the failure of the generals to prepare the military for current guerrilla warfare, and to properly advise civilian leaders on how to achieve policy goals using the military. He suggests that Congressional intervention is the key to remedying the situation.

Agreeing with Prussian military expert Carl von Clausewitz that 3 P's, passion, probability, and policy, play important roles in war, Lt. Col. Yingling emphasizes that each one is essential to the successful waging of war.

He states that statesmen, ie., the President and his staff, must raise the passion of the citizenship to a certain level for them to be willing to face the sacrifices that will come with war, the blood and treasure so often mentioned.

Along with this passion, generals need to supply the policymakers with accurate estimates of stategic probabilities. What are the probabilities, not just the possibilities, of successful prosecution of the war? The generals have a moral obligation not to sugar-coat the probabilities, but to give a frank appraisal of the military's ability to accomplish the goals given to them.

The policymakers, having received the advice of the generals, are the ones ultimately responsible for waging wars. Yingling states:

However much it is influenced by passion and probability, war is ultimately an instrument of policy and its conduct is the responsibility of policymakers. War is a social activity undertaken on behalf of the nation. The military man is no better qualified than the common citizen to make such judgments. He must therefore confine his input to his area of expertise — the estimation of strategic probabilities.

In order to provide an estimation of the strategic possibilities, it is necessary to consider both the preparations for and the probable conduct of the war, the planning and directing of the military. Requiring imagination, creativity and foresight, the generals must be able to estimate present and future military needs, and visualize what future wars will look like. Lt. Col. Yingling gives multiple examples of past wars fought with outdated strategies and tactics and underscores the importance of foreward thinking to prevent the disasters that could follow such erroneous preparations.

Of course even with good reckoning of future military needs, the generals must still be able to convince civilian policymakers of the demands and risks involved. This is potentially difficult, due to the nature of elected officials' thinking more in the short-term needs of the public than longterm needs of national security. Proper military preparedness requires decades, not years, and generals must tread carefully between speaking too loudly and not speaking loudly enough. "A military professional must possess both the physical courage to face the hazards of battle and the moral courage to withstand the barbs of public scorn. On and off the battlefield, courage is the first characteristic of generalship."
---------------------

Lt. Col. Yingling gives a brief analysis of the failures of the generals in Vietnam. Even though President Kennedy talked about "another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin — war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by evading and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him" but America's generals did not heed the warning. Any adjustments, unfortunately after the American people had largely turned against the war, "... are best described as too little, too late."

With respect to the current war in Iraq, Yingling states that the mistakes of Vietnam were repeated due to the failure "...to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly." In addition, the generals failed to gauge what would be necessary to attain the policy goals before the start of the war. Nor did they give a correct description of the war in Iraq. This seems inexcusable with all the terrorist attacks throughout the world since the early l970's. Lt. Col. Yingling feels that there has been a tragic failure to commit the number of troops necessary to keep Iraq's population secure. Despite early estimates of close to a half million troops needed, only half of that number were sent to begin the war. Yet the generals who were in favor of a much high number kept silent. Once again, the current "surge" may be too little, too late.

In addition, there was "no coherent plan for postwar stabilization" and an underreporting of the day-to-day violence. Also compounding the problem was the fact that "...America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."
-------------------------

Quoting J.F.C. Fuller, a British general in WWI, who found three shared traits among great generals - courage, creative intelligence and physical fitness - Yingling wishes that generals would find the moral courage to be more candid and honest in discussions with the executive branch. Finding themselves caught between the rock of executive intimidation and the hard place of betraying what they feel is true, too often generals keep their doubts of the effectiveness of military strategies suggested by the administration to themselves. He also suggests an increase in the number of generals with advanced degrees, especially in social sciences or humanities. He decries the fact that only one fourth of the Army's senior generals is fluent in a foreign language despite the theory that this proficiency is crucial in fighting counterinsurgency.* He also says that the current military does not reward creativity or moral courage. Officers follow the company line and keep their heads low. Conformity reigns supreme.

Believing that neither the White House nor the military branches will solve this problem, Lt. Col. Yingling believes that it will require Congress to become more involved in determining how officers are selected, advanced amd retired, how military power is used, and ..."the Senate must hold accountable through its confirmation powers those officers who fail to achieve the aims of policy at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure."

Yingling warns of military disaster unless the challenges of current insurgencies and the needs of future warfare are adequately acknowledged and plans put in place to prepare the armed forces and the American people accordingly. A key component of this goal is to revamp the generalship to include "...those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security."
-----------------------------------

*The arrogance of American prosperity led us into the false belief that it was incumbent on other nations to teach their populations to speak English, the increasingly main language of international commerce.

The Barbary War - First War on Terror

2007-04-25T14:41:00.000-05:00

If you read the Hitchens article referenced yesterday, you know what war is in question. If you didn't read the article, a brief description is at the bottom of this post.*

What was interesting in this American History lesson from a Brit, was the obvious similarities between Muslim thought then and now. As Western Civilization has progressed in its development of human rights and religious tolerance since the Dark Ages, the civilization controlled by Islam has remained stuck in a mind-set that retains all its most hateful intolerance and barbarity, both to "infidels" and to its own people. The quote from the Muslim ambassador** tells the tale. They were then and still are today at war with all non-muslim nations and individuals.

Foreshadowing the Islamic terrors of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, John Adams, after meeting with the ambassador, and who was more in favor of continuing the extortion payments than beginning war, even said "We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever." He felt that any battle would be "too rugged for our people to bear." As the actions of the past thirty years can attest, he was right. Once you begin the battle, it must be fought to the end.

From the initial hijacking of planes, the terror at the Munich Olympics, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the truck bombing at Marine headquarters in Beirut, the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, to both World Trade Center bombings, the militant jihadist muslims have made their intentions very plain.

Our response, multilateral at times, and unilateral at others, has been both severe and weak. The first Gulf War was an impressive display of military might that was prematurely ended without accomplishing anything more than the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The aftermath proved terrible for the Iraqi minorities that were relying on the collaboration of US led forces to end Saddam's tyranny once and for all. With the abdication of this goal, right or wrong, the US achieved a moral defeat even while achieving a brilliant military victory. Mortal enemies were made with Iraqi factions who to this day and beyond will never trust the United States again.

Here we are again, another military victory, with Saddam gone, at long last, and in the intermediary decade between the two Gulf wars, the terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, flourished, free-floating across borders, taking refuge where possible and recruiting members as necessary. American response to numerous attacks during the Clinton administration on our properties and our interests were weak, "swatting at flies", as President George W. Bush described. These ineffectual reponses to increasingly daring attacks emboldened the already dedicated jihadists and eventually led to the most spectacular terror act in our history, the simultaneous hijacking of four planes and successful destruction of the Twin Towers as well as a good portion of the Pentagon.

This jibes with the actions of the muslim pirates two hundred years ago. When the US negotiated peace by paying the extortion demanded, the price continually went up, testing, testing the limits of American patience. At last, the limit was reached and swift naval action, decisive and strong, brought an end to the hostilities. Today, our government, at least on the Congressional side, is showing the same weakness evidenced in the early part of our history. Congress is declaring the price of the war to be "too rugged for our people to bear." For the democrats in congress, returning to negotiations for "tribute" (read concessions and financial aid) is the correct response.

Hitchens ends his article with lines from Rudyard Kipling's poem "Dane-Geld" (extortion paid to Danish kings as a result of their invasions into England from 856 to 1016, when Canute, a Dane, became King of England)

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

*Barbary Wars
The first war fought outside US territory by the fledgling United States was against four states in North Africa - Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. These "Barbary States" were Muslim countries, part of the Ottoman Empire. The build up for the war was the continuing attacks by the Muslim pirates on merchant vessels, pilgrimages, and other ships in the Mediterranean Sea and beyond. Cargo was plundered, and passengers and crew were assaulted and often enslaved or held for ransom.

The European countries victimized for centuries by these barbarians eventually decided to pay "tribute" to the Barbary states in order to be able to resume travel and trade on the open seas. As long as America was part of England her ships were covered by the English tribute, but after the revolutionary war, US ships were once again prey. Since the new nation had no resources to mount a naval defense against the piracy, the US joined Europe in agreeing to pay tribute.

As is common when obeying demands of blackmailers, the US foound their promises to be quite empty. The amount of the demanded ransom or extortion kept increasing until it was at least ten percent of the national budget. Negotiations with the Muslims proved fruitless and when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to London, they asked him what right the pirates had to this extortion and slavery. Jefferson said he was told

**that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

In the meantime, the American navy was increasing in force and had successful skirmishes with French pirates. Once he became President of the United States, Jefferson received a demand for a huge sum of money; he followed his principles and refused Tripoli's demands. Tripoli declared war on the United States and Algiers, Tunis and Morocco soon did the same. Jefferson responded by sending ships with orders to bombard Tripoli and blockade the countries involved.

The resulting action saw the emergence of new naval heroes such as Stephen Decatur who led a daring group of volunteers to burn a captive US ship to prevent its use in Muslim piracy. The next year brought an impressive Marine victory, an overland trek through the dessert to Tripoli's harbor fortress in Derna, thus immortalizing the phrase in the Marine Corps hymn, "...to the shores of Tripoli." Soon a treaty was signed ending the first of the two Barbary Wars.

The second erupted when the US naval forces were summoned to fight the British in the War of 1812. The piracy resumed and was once again ended by naval victories. In 1815, the second Barbary War ended with all American, and some European, captives released and even some monetary compensation for seized property.

Hitchens' Article for you to Read

2007-04-24T15:55:00.000-05:00

Homework: Read this article and I'll discuss it tomorrow.

Rosie Strikes Again

2007-04-24T09:11:00.001-05:00

The emcee of the annual luncheon of New York Women in Communications was non other than Rosie O'Donnell. She lived up to her reputation by delivering her special brand of off-color humor including the "F-word", and "Eat Me!", a reference to her feud with the Donald.

Some of the attendees professed to be offended by Rosie's remarks. Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat activist for progressive causes called her "vulgar and common." I agree she's vulgar but his remark that she is "common" says more about him than her. I believe those kind of remarks are anything but common, but that's beside the point.

Some thought it was fun to watch other people be offended. I don't need to say anything about that.

However, the NY Women in Communications' managing director, Beth Ellen Keyes, expressed the group's overall pleasure in having Rosie appear and do her thing. "She was just great."

O'Donnell's publicist, Cindi Berger, told the New York Post: "When you ask for Rosie, you know what you're getting. She's not a shrinking violet. She's a stand-up comedienne. She says things that are provocative." No kidding.

Let's play a little game. People who attend these functions, watch certain television shows, listen to certain radio broadcasts, do so of their own free will. If they don't want to subject themselves to Rosie's "humor", or see sex and violence on their TV sets, or hear entertainers' humorous remarks or political opinions, they don't have to. So, our game is to substitute the name "Imus" for "Rosie" in Ms Berger's statement above. "When you ask for Imus, you know what you're getting. (S)He's not a shrinking violet. He says things that are provocative."

Lest you think that the attendees were mostly telephone operators, the Women in Communications group included such celebrities as Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Meredith Vieira, Joan Didion, Arianna Huffington, Nora Ephron, Martha Stewart and Hillary Clinton. Barbara and Joy must be used to Rosie's nasty mouth by now but the others may not have become so jaded. I wonder how many of them railed against Imus' recent provocative remarks. I wonder how many of them will publicly denounce Rosie? Can I count them on one hand? One finger?

UPDATE: 4/25/07; 3:38pm
Oh my! She's going to leave The View which I never watched anyway. It is impossible to live in the US without knowing way more that one wants to know about celebrities, as evidenced by my comments above. Do we really believe the story that it was just a problem negotiating a new contract? Did ABC get tired of her tirades and nastiness? Who cares.

The All-New Sheryl Crow Daily Update

2007-04-23T17:00:00.000-05:00

I'm going to have to rename this blog. The Sheryl Crow Daily Update, or something like that. Check out the Smoking Gun for the scoop on Sheryl "Wipe out Global Warming Now" Crow's backstage demands for her concerts. What's most amazing is her specified choice of alcoholic beverage (whether for her or crew) for each day of the week.

Monday - 1 bottle Makers Mark Bourbon
Tuesday - 1 bottle Bombay Gin and large bottle Schweppes tonic water
Wednesday - 1 bottle Courvoisier Brandy
Thursday - 1 bottle good quality Champagne
Friday - 1 bottle Silver Tequila and 1 bottle margarita mix and a carton of orange juice
Saturday - 1 bottle Absolut Vodka and carton of orange juice
Sunday - 1 bottle silver Tequila and 1 bottle margarita mix and carton of orange juice

If it's Courvoisier, it must be Seattle.

The list also includes an itemized list of snacks, postcards, vitamins, soap, cigarettes, and provisions for the vegetarian members of the crew.

What a nasty carbon footprint she leaves behind. She travels with three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars. Do you think all the concert-goers take the bus?

Think how much better the Earth would be if she gave no more concerts and everybody stayed home for the evening. I'm here to tell you that I will nevuh, evuh, go to another Sheryl Crow concert. I will make this sacrifice for the sake of Mother Earth. If I stick to my guns, can I use more than one square of toilet paper?

I suppose all this is par for the course for performers, past and present, but it sure reinforces my opinion of them as spoiled,demanding, prima donnas. What's more, it make it very hard to take them seriously when they try to tell us how to live our little simple lives.

I promise. No more Sheryl Crow.

Photo credit

Sheryl Crow Strikes Again

2007-04-21T20:07:00.000-05:00

I can't believe I'm writing about Sheryl Crow again, the second time in the past few weeks. Here's a priceless quote from Sheryl, fresh from her "Save the Planet, Stop Global Warming Now" tour.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

i hope she was joking. If not, I don't even know how to react. She proposes a "limitation" on the number of TP squares. Who is going to impose this limit? What's more important, who is going to enforce it? I'm not going to "go" there.

I'll let this new trend start on the west coast. Sheryl, and Barbra, and Alec, and Julia, and all the rest, Al Gore, especially, can "go" first.

Jeesh!

The Second Assault on Virginia Tech

2007-04-18T12:12:00.000-05:00

Unless you've been living in a cave, and it's not as bad an idea as I once thought, you know about the terrible shooting at Virginia Tech during which 32 students and faculty were slaughtered by a clearly disturbed young man, also a student. We were aware of the basic facts late Monday afternoon, April
16, 2007. A few more details emerged the following day concerning the sequence of events and the actions of some of the victims and witnesses. The university held a convocation Tuesday at which officials of the Virginia Tech, the Commonwealth, and President Bush spoke about the tragedy and the healing that will take place. I wish all involved good luck with the healing process. Constant reminders will abound for those who were victims of the atrocity and for the witnesses of it.

Now the media camps are in place. Connections are made, satellites are reached, and microwaves are bouncing through the ether. Hotel rooms are secured, rental cars gassed up, hairdos are moussed, gelled and sprayed. The second wave of the assault begins. This time the perpetrators are the members of the media. As I watched the prelude to the coverage of the convocation, I saw reporters and anchors making assinine statements, second guessing the actions of the campus security, as well as those of the local law enforcement agencies, the University officials, and the victims themselves. Witnesses were interviewed. "Where were you? What did you do? What did you think? How do you feel?" I was hoping to see someone tell a reporter to get lost, or even to ask, "How do you think I feel?" Being polite, not to mention being in shock, and maybe somewhat sensing their fifteen minutes of fame had arrived, the people I saw answered all questions politely and respectfully. If only the MSM were as respectful.

Now that the names and addresses of the victims are available, we can expect to see reporters questioning family and friends of the victims. I always dread those televised exploitations of human grief. We see crying, devastated family members telling about the individual gifts of their loved one. I'm certain that most of us can somewhat imagine the overwhelming sadness those suffering people feel without seeing it on our widescreen, hi-def TV's. The media milks these human tragedies for all they are worth. True to form, they will overstay their welcome at Virginia Tech, and disrupt the university's attempts to return to as normal a situation as possible. I am sure that soon after the shootings the students, faculty, and other staff of Virginia Tech, as well as the population of Blacksburg wished that the media would just go away.

The American people do not need visual evidence of mourning to feel empathy. This pandering to touch the emotions of outsiders to the tragedy yields the taint of a "Jerry Springer-like" entertainment show. What's more, the constant presence and pressure of this media interference present rude interruptions to people's attempts to regain the focus of their lives and return to pursuing their futures.

Enough is enough. Go away.
UPDATE: As always, . Jonah Goldberg says it much better than I ever do.

Tragedies and Those who Line up to Grab the LImelight

2007-04-17T08:40:00.000-05:00

I just listened to the press conference from Virginia Tech officials discussing what is known so far regarding the tragic shooting that occured there yesterday. The president of the university spoke, the various law enforcement bigwigs, the medical examiner, the governor's spokesperson, etc.,etc.

Everyone expresses their horror, sympathy, grief, all the other appropriate expressions and I'm sure that they are sincere. But the need that some people feel to rush in and publicly utter their feelings is suspect. I guess they are sensitive to the media's constant nose-counting of who shows up at these events and who doesn't. Their fear that they would be singled out as "insensitive" or "uncaring" compels them to pop up everywhere the cameras go.

Although not registering on the Richter scale of public tragedies, the recent Imus "scandal" was an example of the same phenomenon. When New Jersey governor Corzine found out that Imus was due to meet with the Rutgers' womens' basketball team to apologize for his nasty remarks directed at them, the governor jumped in his car to show up and gather some of the media attention. He was in no way connected with this unfortunate situation but was compelled by his lust for attention and need to appear appropriately disturbed by Imus' remarks. Too bad for him that he neglected to fasten his seat belt as is required by New Jersey law. He suffered serious injuries after his trooper driven SUV crashed on the way to the media circus.

President Bush and his wife will be appearing at a convocation at Virginia Tech later today to express their sadness and grief for the calamity that happened there. That's just what that community needs - a whirlwind of activity surrounding the appearance of the president and his entourage when the university is already in an uproar and the investigation is ongoing. I am sure his feelings are genuine but it smacks of political opportunism.

Still More on the Imus

2007-04-16T17:45:00.000-05:00

If you can stand more from me on the Imus fiasco, read the editorial from the Manchester, NH, Union Leader.

The Imus standard: You can't Say That

Radio talk show host Don Imus called Rutgers' mostly black women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and got fired. Al Sharpton falsely accused a white man of rape and incited a race riot that left several dead. Jesse Jackson called Jews "hymies." And yet they still mingle at the highest circles of Democratic Party politics.
Imus' comments were indefensible. Even if the women did have tattoos and look a bit street-tough, as Imus was trying to say, calling them whores was an insult too far. But is it a fireable offense for a "shock jock" who has built his career uttering juvenile comments, including regularly making what he calls "n----- jokes"?

What Imus said was a great deal tamer than what is routinely uttered by rappers who call women "bitches" and boast about using and abusing them. It is tamer than the misogynistic and even racist jokes numerous stand-up comics make a living uttering. How did this offensive but comparatively tame comment get a major radio host pulled from the air? Fellow syndicated radio host Neal Boortz has a theory.

Boortz thinks that the Left has finally figured out how to bring down talk radio: accuse the hosts of racism. Unable to compete with talk radio, the Left has opted to play thought police. Racial prejudice is the last free speech taboo in America. Peg a broadcaster as racist, and you can bring him down.

"Liberals see this whole Imus situation as a way to rid themselves of the problem of talk radio ... they will turn their attention to the rest of us. The tape recorders will be running. There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire."

Boortz has a point. Calling black women "hos" is not offensive to the cultural Left. If it were, there would be boycotts of rap stars and record labels. But if it presents an opportunity to go after a non-liberal talk radio host, the Left will take it. With one notch on their belt, they'll be sure to seek others.

Meanwhile, the same people who demanded Imus' head on a pike will continue to give platforms to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as legions of rappers provide the misogynistic background music.

Copyright, Manchester Union Leader, 2007

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

2007-04-16T13:19:00.000-05:00

A lone gunman killed at least 32 people at Virginia Tech this morning, wounding many more. What a tragedy. I suspect families and friends across the nation are frantic to find out whether or not their relative or friend is safe. The dreadful time spent in this kind of uncertainty can drive one to distraction.

The gunman is one of the dead, perhaps by his own hand. I hope that is the case. I can't imagine the panic among students, faculty, and all other workers at Virginia Tech, until the word was spread that the threat was over.

My prayers go out to those affected by the terrible actions of a crazed person.

The Imus' Shame - It's Not Just His

2007-04-15T16:53:00.000-05:00

I couldn't let this subject pass without pointing out this article by the brillian Mark Steyn. He is right on, as usual, and his wit shines through this as well as all his work.

DUMB AND DUMBER

2007-04-13T07:45:00.001-05:00

Thank goodness someone else feels the way I do. Linda Chavez has an article that describes my feelings about news coverage as practiced today. With all the important, and in some cases vitally important issues to debate in the media, the past several months, really years, have been filled with media blasted trivia.

The past two weeks have been non-stop Imus and his stupid comment, Anna-Nichole Smith (Imus should have called her something nasty-it would have been hard to refute) and her now motherless as well as previously fatherless child, and lastly, will Sanjaya get kicked off American Idol. I don't listen to Imus, but one can't help knowing more than one wants to about him, even before this lastest brouhaha. I don't watch Idol, Survivor, Dances with Stars, or much else that passes for entertainment on television, and, when I watch the news, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper, I resent having to wade through updates on what's happening on TV shows. We also have the unending celebrity stories, worth little other than to publicize the antics of actresses, models, rockstars and the like to further clutter our minds with worthless information.

That's NEWS? No wonder newspapers are declining in circulation. No wonder television news shows have declining viewerships. Fox News enjoys a healthy percent of the viewers, and it is one of the worst at celebrity drivel. No wonder people turn to the internet to find in depth information on a wide variety of subject with a wide variety of viewpoints.

The Imus situation is a perfect example. Instead of just letting his stupid comment die a natural death, maybe with the powers that be uttering a "tsk, tsk, shame, shame," the subject was bandied about at first, then hammered into everyone's consciousness by a rampant media. I suppose the MSM was intent on proving how non-racist, non-sexist it is by constantly appearing shocked, shocked as something the "shock jock" said.

They had to drag out that useful idiot Al Sharpton who leeches onto every news story where race appears to be an issue. Why anyone still gives him a podium is beyond me. I was astonished that he received taxpayer funds for his run for the White House a few years ago. It further served to "legitimize" his pontifications. His demand that Imus be fired was listened to and obeyed, as most people thought it would be. I don't care that Imus was fired. If CBS and MSNBC wanted to fire him, that's their and his business. They might have become tired of his antics, but I doubt it. His antics draw more attention to his show and increase listenership. If they fired him due to hypocritical rantings by Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the like (I did not say "those people"), shame on them.

Sharpton says this is only the beginning. He will set his sights on any radio or TV personality who dares to utter anything remotely troubling to his ears. Look out, Limbaugh, Boortz, and the rest of "you people" in TV and radio land. More tempests in teapots on the horizon.

These media storms are another "opium for the masses", keeping the population occupied with the media's trivial pursuits instead of pondering the more important issues of the day. Perhaps if as much attention was paid to the dismal education system in government schools, or the increasingly high costs of higher education, American youth would grow to disdain such ridiculously over-hyped news stories and demand coverage of more important issues.

The media has decided to give scant attention to the Islamic threat to our way of life in lieu of beaucoup attention to trivial matters. Ironic, isn't it, that, should the Islamists have their way, the MSM, and probablty all media, will be under the thumb of radicals who will put up with no Anna-Nichole Smiths, no American Idols, and no Don Imuses, at all. No women's basketball either, for that matter. See? Problem solved.

GET ON A BUS AND TAKE IT TO THE PEOPLE!!!

2007-04-11T08:11:00.001-05:00

"DALLAS, April 10 (UPI) -- Singer Sheryl Crow wants her fans to do more than have some fun -- she's asking audiences during her U.S. tour to join the fight against global warming. "Mother Earth is a living organism and when she gets sick we get sick," Crow told a crowd at Southern Methodist University in Dallas during her kick-off performance Monday.

"My answer to everything is get on a tour bus and take it to the people," Crow commented."

That's right, Sheryl, the answer to everything is to hop on a large, convenience-filled bus, followed by a truck(s) carrying all your props, maybe another bus with your crew. Who knows how many other buses, vans, planes, will be used by your groupies and hop from city to city. Eleven cities to be exact. It's the answer to everything.

"Taking it to the people" in this case means "mobilizing students to help end global warming." Right. Just let them finish exams first, then chug a few beers, and maybe explain it all to mom and dad and get them to go see "An Inconvenient Truth" as a family fun night.

What's Sheryl going to do? Show clips from Gore's movie? Hand out brochures? Lecture? God forbid! College students hear enough lectures. Assuming the college students attending her concert stick around for any climate-change lecture or keep the brochures (anyone ever seen the litter after a concert?), what will they learn from it?

They'll learn that here's another hypocritical rich celebrity traveling around in style preaching to the great unwashed. She will be telling them about the future she wants them to inhabit, a future that will provide a life less comfortable than the one they are currently living. More darkness, less travel, at least less comfortable travel, more expensive everything, (as food crops get shifted to biofuels all foods will become more expensive), and more importantly, less freedom. Great incentive, Sheryl.

Ubiquitous activist Laurie David is part and parcel of this. She and Sheryl formed the tour idea as "two girls bonding over global warming." How sweet. But there is another girl out there who doubts the veracity of Laurie and Sheryl's professed warming warning. Camille Paglia at Salon.com gives vent to her skepticism on the matter. I take her considerably more seriously than I do Sheryl Crow. Stick to your day-job, kiddo.

Here are some of Paglia's comments. It's a long bit to have copied and pasted here, but interesting nonetheless.

"...I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.

Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.

Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.

I voted for Ralph Nader for president in the 2000 election because I feel that the United States needs a strong Green Party. However, when I tried to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on cable TV recently, I wasn't able to get past the first 10 minutes. I was snorting with disgust at its manipulations and distortions and laughing at Gore's lugubrious sentimentality, which was painfully revelatory of his indecisive, self-thwarting character. When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming -- which is blatantly untrue -- he forfeited his own credibility.

Environmentalism is a noble cause. It is damaged by propaganda and half-truths. Every industrialized society needs heightened consciousness about its past, present and future effects on the biosphere. Though I am a libertarian, I am a strong supporter of vigilant scrutiny and regulation of industry by local, state and federal agencies. But there must be a balance with the equally vital need for economic development, especially in the Third World...."

Hostage Release

2007-04-05T07:11:00.000-05:00

Were they hostages? I suppose anyone who is held against his will by someone demanding something from someone else is a hostage. What was Iran demanding? An apology from Great Britain that its sailors and marines were illegally in Iranian waters, I guess, and other mea culpas maybe going back to the Crusades. Whatever.

With near universal GPS gizmos in military use I suppose it is known whether or not the "hostages" (or unfortunate "victims of a misunderstanding that could be resolved" *) were actually in Iranian waters. But it seems to be a "he said - he said" situation and we may never know for certain.

Who cried Uncle first? Did Blair's patience and pressure win the day or did Britain show a lack of strength by not blasting Iran off the map, presumably with US help? Did Ahmadinejad fear devastation to Iranian economy, if not the country itself, if he continued to hold the prisoners hostage? Did he feel he had made the Brittish grovel long enough? Or did someone make him an offer he couldn't refuse?

I'm hoping it was the later but I wish the offer had been made sooner. The hostages with images of recent beheadings in their minds must have been near frantic with fear.

By Ahmadinejad's grandstanding oratory yesterday, he seems to feel that his magnanimous "gift" to the show him to be a diplomatic of the first order and not a thug that the western world knows him to be. We remember the other Iranian hostages who spent over a year in Iranian hospitality before being "gifted" back to the United States in 1981. Ahmadinijad was involved in that little escapade as well. They got away with it then and they got away with it now.

When will the next hostage taking be?

*President Bush was chastised for using the term "hostage" by a former Director of News for the British Foreigh Service, John Williams.

Hillary with a Staight Face

2007-03-27T06:29:00.000-05:00

I assume Hillary Clinton had a straight face when declaring that the two US attorney firings were totally different situations. Well, she's right about that.

Her husband fired them all some 93 of them, a month or so after his inauguration. He or Hillary might have had Web Hubbell order Janet Reno to do so. This was an unprecedented move, in spite of Hilary's implication to the contrary. George W. Bush, or Alberto Gonzales or someone else in the administration, waited until six years had passed since the Bush inauguration to fire only eight. I understand that this was only after a year or two of deliberation over the wisdom, political or otherwise, of doing so.

There are more differences, the Whitewater scandal was being investigated, FOB's were in hot water with a couple of the attorneys, and to fire them all was to remove suspicion from firing just the ones prosecuting those cases.

I suppose Gonzales will be thrown to the wolves as was Rumsfeld. This is yet another example of the Bush White House being unwilling, or unable, to play hardball with the democrats. Perhaps Gonzales deserves criticism for handling the situation clumsily. Perhaps he deserves to be fired for not being able to stand up to the congressional bullies screaming about this non-existent scandal. But George Bush himself is no good at standing up against Congress or standing up for himself.

For Hillary to imply that Bill's firing the attorneys was "business as usual" when it hadn't even been done by Nixon is the height of hypocritical nonsense.

Another Inconvenient Truth for Gore

2007-03-21T07:45:00.000-05:00

Well, maybe the sun has a little something to do with it after all. NASA now says :

"Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past. "

This presents a somewhat "inconvenient truth" to some of our esteemed Global Warming Alarmists (GWA), committed to the proposition that the carbon footprint of mankind is the main if not sole contributing factor to the predicted gloom of climate change.

Maybe winning the Oscar has turned his head. After living as a world-wide celebrity for the past few months - movie star, Oscar winner, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and Man-about-Town, it must be hard to remind one's self to be a regular guy and play by the rules. After demanding special treatment from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works investigating global warming, Al Gore now feels that the special privileges granted to him need not apply after all.

First he demanded and received permission to present an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement. Then, the usual 48-hour presubmission rules, designed to grant Senate committee members time to go over upcoming testimony, and prepare questions, was waived in favor or Gore's requested 24-hour presubmission time. Now it seems the 24-hours have lapsed with no testimony submitted. Wonder why? Could it be that our super-intelligent former VP was not prepared? Nah. This is the guy that invented the internet, after all. He surely has his opening comment speech prepared, polished and perfected. Could it be that he didn't want to tip his hand and let committee members have time to ask him some difficult questions, especially in light of the above mentioned NASA statement? Looks like it.

Al might be well versed in talking the global warming talk, (although he doesn't like walking the global warming walk) but he's not a scientist, after all, much less an expert in the fields of climatology, astronomy, solar whatever-ology, and any other -ologies pertaining to the study of global warming. He might not fare well going toe-to-toe with an expert from NASA.

It certainly doesn't bode well for Gore having the public find out that in additon to his energy-gulping mansion Gore now holds himself well above regulations required of others testifying before Senate committees.

Photo courtesy- NASA/JPL-Caltech

A Dog's Life

2007-03-20T07:26:00.000-05:00

He came into our lives in October, 1996, a scrawny, long-legged bundle of energy, about to enter his third, fourth or fifth life. If cats are said to have nine lives, surely dogs must have more than one. This dog, rescued from a Washington, DC animal shelter, started his official "second" life when our daughter took him home to her small apartment already occupied by two cats. When the cats refused to accept his still puppy-like ways, he started his "third" life in Ohio with us.

He must have thought that he was in heaven. A large fenced back yard, another dog to play with, a nice house, warm in winter, and cool in summer, and two more people who would grow to love him like no other dog. Our dog at the time, Jesse James, was five years old, and somewhat set in her ways, but she accepted Kirby and the two of them chased around the house and yard with wild abandon.

How to describe Kirby? Part terrier, part hound, deep chested, tiny waist, long, skinny legs. Sparse fur which grew in a coarse-looking manner, but was surprisingly soft to the touch. Mostly white, with a few large tan spots, black spots on his pink skin, big ears, long tail, with one eye rimmed in black which made it appear larger than the other. He was definitely an original. He always drew attention wherever he went. "What kind of dog is that?" was heard countless times. Our standard answer was "He's a Kirby," a true one and only.

He had the mannerisms of Tramp, from the Disney movie, spunky, and boyish to the nth degree. His favorite pastime was chasing tennis balls, a not unusual activity for dogs, but he did it in his own way. When my husband mowed the lawn, he would throw the tennis ball for Kirby, who would run at speed to fetch it. He was smart enough to drop the ball right in the path of the mower to insure that it would be thrown again immediately. This made lawn mowing take a little more time, but he never tired of chasing the ball during the whole hour and a half, and he would gladly sacrifice a torn claw to retrieve the ball after one bounce.

In his first life, Kirby must have known love and attention. He came to the animal shelter totally housetrained, understanding the word "NO" and quickly learned the boundaries of our unfenced front yard. He was obedient, always came to us when called, and although a little destructive in the beginning, quickly learned what he was allowed and not allowed to chew on. He only strayed once, during a heavy snowstorm when he wandered between two neighboring houses and found himself on the street behind us, slightly disoriented. We were outside with him shoveling snow and when we missed him, we scattered and luckily found him right away.

When Jesse James died, we waited a year to get another dog. The new one was Little Dixie, a Maltese puppy. Kirby's gentle nature let him adopt her and put up with her chewing on his heels, ears, and tail. In spite of the great difference in their sizes, the two of them played and chased each other around the house. His only fault was in not sharing toys with her. He would carry his stash of toys upstairs, one by one, and hide them from her in a guest bedroom. If we bought tiny toys for her and big toys for him, he learned to leave the tiny ones alone, but he never let her play with any of his.

We have always wondered what his early life was like. When our daughter first adopted him, he was filthy, with grease stains on his back. He had obviously been living on the streets for a while. I'm sure he had some unpleasant memories but he kept them to himself. His only outward fear was of thunder and fireworks, a common fear for dogs. He was boarded over one fourth of July weekend while we were back in DC visiting our daughter. When we returned, the kennel owners told us that he had escaped the kennel and they had no idea where he was. We were horrified and spent two days with the help of friends searching for him. When we finally got a phone call telling us that he was found, we were so relieved. During his flight, probably caused by his panic at the sound of fireworks nearby, he was clever enough to go up to the front door of a house where the lights were on. He looked in the screen door and the people inside finally saw him and were kind enough to give him food and water. He stayed on their porch overnight and they finally let him inside to rest. I must have walked and driven right by that house several times while I was searching for him never knowing he was safe inside. Those wonderful people called the animal shelter who had already been notified by the kennel. They put two and two together and that's how Kirby was rescued yet again. He sat on my lap during the twenty minute ride home and cried the whole time, as if trying to tell me about his frightening adventure.

That was the last time he was boarded at that place. They never told me how he managed to get out, if they even knew. He definitely didn't like confinement, maybe due to his memory of being at the animal shelter in DC. When we found a reliable indoor kennel, with several doors between the boarding area and the outside, we were lucky that the kennel mistress developed a deep connection with Kirby. He was only in a cage at night, when the kennel staff left for the day. The rest of the time, he was allowed in the staff room, the office, the supply room, wherever he wasn't in the way. They gave us a photo of him curled up in an empty kitty litter box in their storeroom. Another time, he slept wrapped around their fax machine, on the counter in the office. But eventually, as he got older, his extreme fear of being caged was more than he could bear. During his last kenneling, he destroyed the heavy stainless steel kennel door, and became so distraught that the kennel mistress had the vet in the facility examine him and sedate him because his life was in danger.

Fortunately, he survived the ordeal and we decided never to kennel him again. We found "Ark Angels", a pet sitting service that was a loving alternative for the times we had to leave town for a few days. Wonderful neighbors filled in when family emergencies prevented our arranging for pet sitters. Our DC daughter eventually moved to our town and Kirby was reunited with his original "Mommy" rescuer. Although he stayed at our house, the two of them had a special bond, evidenced by the way he "talked" to her whenever she came to our house.

He also "talked" to my sister from New York. She loved Kirby as if he were her own. And the two of them would sing "You are My Sunshine". He would relish the opportunity to sleep in bed with her whenever she spent the night with us.

Yesterday, unquestionably the hardest day of our life, we had our dear Kirby put down. After a mercifully short illness, heart failure, he was unable to do much more than lift his head. He refused medication after a few days and we stopped forcing the pills on him. We spent his last few days giving him small bits of steak, scrambled eggs, and more steak. Our dedicated vet and his wife spent a generous amount of time with us and we finally left Kirby there, secure in the knowlege that he was in no pain and would never have any more fears. Oddly enough, we had a thunderstorm soon after we arrived home. We knew that Kirby was not bothered by the thunder claps. It was the only bright thing in the whole dark, dismal day.

I know the pain we feel will ease, but there will always be our deep, abiding love for the very special dog Kirby who will be missed by the many people who knew and loved him.

The Eagles Gather

2007-03-18T06:32:00.000-05:00

A heart-felt "Thank You" goes out to all the people who formed the "Gathering of Eagles" yesterday in Washington, DC. to show their support for our troops and their mission in Iraq.People came from near and far to counter the anti-war crowd's own gathering the same day in DC.

Hot Air has a preview of a powerful ad produced by Move America Forward set to air nationally on Monday. Check it out.

Also see the Gathering of Eagles website for background information on the hastily but successfully planned event.

To see Cindy Sheehan at her best/worst go here.

The antiwar movement can't find anybody better than her? Her voice must turn off thousands of people and her siple rhetoric is nothing new. The poor thing is being used and when she's outlived her usefullness and finds that her fifteen minutes of fame are over, she will be even more pathetic. I almost feel sorry for her.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-15T09:07:00.001-05:00

If you haven't watched the British television production, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", you owe it to yourself to do so. It is approximately an hour and fifteen minutes of your time and is easily available on the internet to watch realtime or download (free). It is very eye-opening regarding the relationship between manmade carbon dioxide and temperature changes (it's not what you've been lead to believe), and the direct influence of the sun and its activies on the Earth's climate.

With the new information from astronomy telling us that it appears ice on Mars has been melting, I fail to comprehend how anthropogenic global warming could have this effect on Mars, whose distance from Earth can be as close as 35 million miles or as far as 250 million miles. But in the global warming extremists' views, there is no evil deed, no matter how remote, that man, cannot accomplish.

For great reviews of both Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" see this site.
Also, Thomas Sowell has some interesting comments on the BBC production as well.

"The Flying Imams"

2007-03-14T08:35:00.001-05:00

What a stupid term. It always makes me think of the "Flying Wallendas" or the Wizard of Oz's "Flying Monkeys". But I must admit that I know exactly to which imams one is referring, the six Muslim clerics booted from a USAirways flight a few months ago due to suspicious behavior noted by other passengers on the flight. Their concern about the clerics' behavior, loud "Allahu Akbars!" while waiting at the gate, agitated appearance, angry comments about America, Osama, and Saddam, their requested seatbelt extenders put under the seats, their switching seats and the worrisome location of those seats, similar in pattern to that of the September 11 attackers, caused the flight to be delayed and the imams to be asked to leave the plane.

If I had been a passenger on that flight, I would have been relieved. The imams, however, were aggrieved, declaring their removal to be an example of racial profiling, and and religious discrimination.

There were investigations, of course, by Minneapolis police, USAirways, and Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, the Air Carrier Security Committee of the Air Line Pilots Association, and probably others. All investigations cleared the crew of wrongdoing in the removal of the Muslims.

So now the Council of American-Islamic Relations, is planning to sue. It may just be another attempted shakedown of a major company in the name of "diversity and tolerance", but I can't see most Americans supporting USAirways if it caves to CAIR's lawsuit. It's way past time to stop giving in to these extortion attempts.

And now a word to CAIR: you aren't going to win friends with this tactic, but you may influence people, albeit negatively. Give up this lawsuit and let it rest.

Hillary-ous Comparison

2007-03-12T13:20:00.000-05:00

[March 11, 2007 — NASHUA, N.H. - Hillary Clinton Speaking]

“He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, ‘America will never elect a Catholic as president,’ But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better. They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

"...women are "the majority" of voters and are in the workforce in "record numbers," So when people tell me 'a woman can never be president,' I say, we'll never know unless we try."

There must be a lot of Kennedy people who are rolling their eyes over this. Teddy comes to mind. In any comparison between JFK and HRC, HRC is going to come up short, and I don't mean in height.

Hillary seems to be implying that women and some men will vote for her because she is a woman, as if that were her main attribute. I don't know anybody, although I'll wager there were some, who would have said that JFK should have been elected just because he was a Roman Catholic. He was elected partly because his father did everything in his power to pull whatever strings necessary to get him the nomination, partly because Chicago Mayor Daley and others rigged the election results, and partly because Richard Nixon's makeup was terrible. He was also elected in part because he was dynamic, and inspiring, and because people liked him and agreed with his politics. He promised to bring youth and vitality to the White House after decades of having old men occupy the Oval Office. His beautiful and cosmopolitan wife and two little children also brought a breath of fresh air, although these were less than ideal qualifications for the presidency.

I don't think the Clintons have youth and vitality going for them, and she is neither dynamic nor inspiring. And I imagine the White House windows were opened wide to let in fresh air after the Clintons left in 2000.

About the only thing that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy have in common is their political party. But Kennedy was hardly a Clinton democrat, especially not a Hillary democrat. Little did we know that history would show Jack Kennedy to be more "republican" than many republicans today.

One clear difference between her and JFK was in their views on national defense. Kennedy screwed up the Bay of Pigs fiasco but when push came to shove he stared down the Russians and made them remove the missiles from within easy striking distance of Florida. He didn't "dialog" Kruschev to death; he threatened the heck out of him. Hillary would have gone on a listening tour of Moscow and then invited Kruschev to "chat" a while, probably after making sure Chirac went along with it.

-----------

An afterthought: I don't know about you, but I can almost hear her saying,

"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."

Just a suggestion

2007-03-10T08:01:00.000-05:00

I just read a great interview on Frontline with Dr. S.Fred Singer author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. I knew the "other side" of the global warming debate would show up sooner or later. 'Bout time!

Read the interview while you can. Learn a few key parts to bring up when the next liberal fear monger starts spouting about global warming.

Here's a snippet:

(Interviewer)
Do you think, then, this is no longer operating as "normal" science, that there's some kind of pathological mechanism here?

(Dr. Singer)
I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that's being made available to people. I don't blame people for accepting money. And the people who take the money and do research, by and large, are doing very competent research. [But] you'll find them very careful not to speak out against the global warming "threat" -- I'm putting "threat" in quotes, of course. And you'll find also that when they do speak out, as many of them do, they suffer consequences. They lose support. And I can give you examples of that. Or they have other consequences that are equally disagreeable. And if you're a young professor at a university and want to get tenure, or if you want to get a permanent academic position, you must do published research. And to do published research, you must write proposals to get money to do the research. So you're locked into a vicious spiral here. You have to go along with the current wisdom that global warming is a threat. Otherwise, you're not going to get the job that you want.

Graphics credit

Random Thoughts on a Friday Evening....

2007-03-09T18:10:00.000-05:00

Human Sacrifice in the Future?

While in the car today, listening to the news, I heard that Mayan priests plan to purify a sacred archaeological site after President Bush visits it during his trip to Guatemala next week. The Mayan people and their culture are duly offended by his presence at their holy site according to Juan Tiney, a spokesman for Mayan religious and political leaders. I wonder if the priests will follow their ancient practice of offering human sacrifice to appease any offended gods. I understand that prisoners, slaves, and even children, specially purchased for the occasion, were favored offerings. But we won't go into that.

Free Libby!!

If Libby goes to jail it will be the ultimate insult to Lady Justice. It's a good thing she's blindfolded and can't see what's going on; she might just quit her gig forever.

Here we have a man who "forgot" or "lied" about who, what, when, he was told or told about the Valerie Plame affair. It doesn't matter. There was no originating crime about "outing" her anyway or we would be seeing a trial taking place on that subject.

Now over there we have a man who stole multiple items from the National Archives, not coupons, mind you, but classified, top secret documents. He stole them, hid them, and destroyed them. And lied about it! We'll never know what information was jotted down in the margins of the multiple copies of the same document by the various Clinton people who had them in their possession. It is hard to believe that there was any other reason for the theft and destruction of these documents than to protect Clinton or others from something, if only from embarrassment. He gets the proverbial slap on the wrist. Unbelievable.

We're Sorry you're Offended.

2007-03-07T07:30:00.000-05:00

I was trying to stay away from the "Ann Coulter-John Edwards-Faggot" brouhaha. But I can't help jumping in with my two cents worth, if it's even worth two cents. The whole thing makes me tired, so tired.

I was tired of hearing about the "F-word" the first time I heard someone reporting on Coulter's use of it in a supposed joke about the current craze of running to rehab after getting caught doing anything wrong, embarrassing or politically incorrect. I assumed the "F-word" she used was of the four letter variety. How wrong I was.

She was referring to the NEW "F-word", the one that sent "Grey's Anatomy" actor Isaiah Washington to the Apology Podium for using that slur to refer to fellow cast member. In case you've been living in a cave for the past month or so, the word is "faggot." Shhhhhhhh.

After that unfortunate occurence, ABC and other bigwigs bent over backwards to decry the use of the word faggot, which is very interesting if the following is indeed the case. Brent Bozell writes:

In fact, the networks are in federal court at this very moment, suing for the "right" to drop F-bombs on children whenever they'd like. That F-bomb is OK for national television, but it's not OK for the new F-bomb to be uttered anywhere, even on the privacy of the set, even when it's between adults.

Once again, Hollywood looks hypocritical, so high and mighty about their vaunted right to shock and offend, to push every envelope and melt every taboo, and it doesn't matter how many they offend. But in their neighborhood there are rules, they have their own list of Seven Dirty Words you can't say, their own system of censorship and their own secular sacraments of penance.

We saw this in November, when comedian Michael Richards screamed the N-word at a comedy club, recorded on a cell phone. No one would rebroadcast the offending word, even as Richards was denounced in every venue. We can applaud that and ask: So why not the same standard for the other obscenities?

It seems that Hollywood bows before the god of Diversity, and the greatest blasphemous offenses anyone can commit all lie in the minefields of racial and sexual identity politics.

So now the democrats have a new pariah, not that they've ever been fond of Ann Coulter and her the biting humor. She often cuts too close to the mark for anyone to be comfortable. They are insisting that all republican candidates run to the Apology Podium to repudiate and apologize for her remarks. But I find this just another example of their hypocrisy. They can stand idly by while their minions declare George W. Bush to be the new Hitler, the world's real terrorist, an idiot, etc., while Julia Roberts finds the word "republican" in the dictionary between "reptile" and "repulsive", Alec Baldwin wishes Henry Hyde and his family dead, and Bill Maher rues the fact that Dick Cheney wasn't blown to smithereens by an assassin's bomb. But let one republican call someone a "faggot", even indirectly, and buddy, there's hell to pay.

Jon Sanders agrees that an apology is necessary and furnishes a great one right here. He "apologizes" to Howard Dean by listing ways Coulter could have jabbed at Edward, all right-on, by the way, and ends by saying:

"In short, Coulter's remark was ugly, gratuitous, and worthless. She could have leveled far more substantial -- and entertaining -- hits on John Edwards than what she said. For that we offer our sincere apologies and hopes for greater political discourse."

As for me, I'll just say, "I'm sorry you're offended. Now bugger off. I'm tired of it."

Aunt Jemima Clinton

2007-03-06T18:39:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton has a tin ear. That was my first thought when I heard clips of her recent speeches, complete with phony southern drawl, given to a black audience in Selma, Alabama, over the weekend. She recited a Black hymn and, instead of just saying the words with whatever enthusiasm she found necessary, she gave it a "Black" emphasis which was as false as her lifetime fondness for the New York Yankees.

Few of us know what our voices really sound like to others. It is always a surprise to hear ourselves when recorded on an audio media; It usually sounds funny and somewhat embarrassing to those of us not used to hearing our own public utterances come back to haunt us. But we are mere mortals. We don't have Hollywood connections. Unless the Clintons burned this one particular bridge behind them, Harry and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason should have been available to coach and cue the junior Senator from New York (via a long stint in Arkansas and a longer one in Illinois) in her delivery. She either had no coaching, or it didn't "take." Listen to some of the clips available at Youtube right here.

For the record, it seemed to me that Obama felt it necessary to accentuate his blackness with a little exaggerated speech effects. The poor guy can't be either black or white enough to suit his aspirations.

This is just another example of Hillary's calculated candidacy. From her calm, cool, and collected appearance in her tastefully appointed livingroom to announce her candidacy, and request a chat, a dialog with us, to her ranting about the war to appease her liberal base, to this pandering to the Black people in Selma, she insults the intelligence of Black and White America alike. I am offended, even if the people she panders to are not.

Gore's Other Inconvenient Truth

2007-03-02T16:12:00.000-05:00

He payed attention. He served under the Clinton's and he payed attention. He realized that he too could make some real money after leaving office. He had already written a book, Earth in the Balance, and after his stint as a professor, beard and all, he tried his oratorial skills. Remember his rant regarding George Bush's supposed pre- 9/11 Iraq invasion plans? "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!" Then he tried the movie business with An Inconvenient Truth which may turn out to be very inconvenient to us. He's yet to find out whether or not he'll be bringing home the Nobel Peace Prize so he's decided to become a snake-oil salesman (the Nobel Peace Prize for what? for not duking it out with GWB for the presidency?).

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Our former VP is selling the environmental equivalent of snake-oil. If we are to believe his dire warnings, we are on the brink of destroying the planet and life as we know it. The global temperature is warming, ice caps are melting, the sea level is rising, polar bears are drowning, and we all know that it is due to human activities. Well, not the activies of all humans, just those of us in western, developed countries with high employment and high productivity and a high standard of living. Let's face it. In some countries, people just don't live long enough to do much damage to the world. But we Americans, living in our nice homes, keeping warm in winter and cool in summer, eating red meat, washing with fresh, safe water daily, and flushing our toilets instead of dumping the slops out the window, have the nerve to live well into our 70's and 80's while driving our gas-guzzling SUV's thousands of miles a year. We are responsible for all the ills facing the planet. Period. No one dares to dispute this man's scientific conclusions. See this prior post.

So, what are we to do? According to Mr. Gore and others, we should do all that we can to conserve natural resources; cut back on our energy consumption; look for alternative more earth-friendly sources of energy; and once we've calculated our reduced "carbon footprint" we then should pay our penance with "carbon offsets". According to Wikipedia, the not always reliable information source, but the handiest for me at present, a "carbon offset" is:

"A service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.[1] A wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits.

The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming.[2] The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, carbon offsets are not without controversy, with some environmentalists and economists questioning the overall benefits of the practice."

Did you get that last sentence - "with some environmentalists and economists questioning the overall benefits of the practice"? So, without clear proof that it would make much difference, we are urged to purchase these offsets, which would at least make us feel as if we were doing something to help stave off the coming crisis. For some democrats, that warm and fuzzy "feeling" is enough.

Where do you buy carbon offsets? I live in a greater metropolitan area of at least a half million people. I haven't seen the Offsets-R-US anywhere. Is it something you order online? Maybe Amazon sells them; they sell everything else these days. Let's see what Al Gore does.

For your review: Al and The Tipster have, oh, I don't know, maybe two homes. I know about the one in an exclusive fashionable Nashville suburb. You've probably seen the recent articles here and there about the size of it, a 20 room McMansion that uses 20 times the energy of a typical American home. This is according to reliable sources, in this case, the Nashville daily newspaper, The Tennessean, which obtained records from the Nashville Electric Service. There is a correspondingly large usage of natural gas, as would be expected.

When questioned about this seeming inconsistency with Al Gore's teachings about the necessity for energy conservation, Gore's spokesperson (WARNING!! from now on I'm using the word "spokesman") assured us that the Gores have switched to fluorescent bulbs, and are having solar panels installed, and have participated in a "Green Power Switch" program. I'll give him credit for putting some of his money where his mouth is . (The Tennessee Valley Authority has information here about this potential energy-saving program). In addition to that, they drive a Lexus Hybrid SUV for gasoline savings, probably somewhat offset by his trips around the world promoting himself, I mean, his movie. Sometimes, he even flies commercial airlines instead of private jets. But, just to make up for any extra carbon footprints that he and his family may be leaving around the planet, he buys carbon offsets. Lucky for him that he can afford them.

Gore's spokesman says that "Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the famiily's carbon footprint - a concept the right-wing fails to understand." He's right in a way, but I do understand the concept, I just don't understand how purchasing the offsets "offsets", compensates or atones for one's prior energy usage. The way I see it, Gore wants to continue with his conspicuous energy consumption and just buy his way out of his guilty conscience. He still is using enough energy to drive up the price for the rest of us so that we can't buy "offsets" even if we know where to find them.

So where in the world does Gore go to salve his conscience? It turns out that he buys his offsets through a company called Generation Investment Management. (GIM) Coincidentally, he is one of the founders and serves as chairman. This information is readily available at the company's website, above. GIM invests some of its money in sources of alternative energy and other projects that aim to lower energy use worldwide.

In other words, GIM is an international investment firm, not an alternative energy producer, supplier, or even a tree-planting company as one might assume. So, Gore invests in his own company, urges others to do the same, and probably will benefit financially as the practice becomes more widespread among his fellow guilt-ridden liberals.

By the way, you can check the financial holdings (as of DEc. 31, 2006)of GIM at this SEC site. I spent an hour or so looking up each company listed in the report. Some of the holdings are what you might expect:

Johnson Controls - Batteries for hybrid vehicles
Metabolix, Inc.- "Greener" plastics and chemicals
Waters Corp. - Safer water, food, healthcare products
Whole Foods - Natural, organic food retailer

Others are interesting:

Laboratory Corp. - genomic testing, diagnostic technology
Aquantive - Digital marketing
Techne Corp. - Medical research
VCA Antech - Pet healthcare systems
Sysco - Food Service
Staples - Office supply superstores
General Electric - Variety of industries
Becton Dickinson - Medical technology
Autodesk - 2D and 3D design software
Aflac - Insurance

And still others are very interesting:

Greenhill and Co.- Investment banking
Blackbaud - Fundraising software and management
Northern Trust - Financial, investment services
Nuveen - Investment management
UBS - Global financial services

Of the nineteen companies listed in the SEC report, four seem to be directly involved in some sort of energy saving/resource providing activities. Ten are in a variety of industries, and five are in the financial/investment business. GIM's stated goal is to "buy high quality businesses and management teams whose securities are attractively priced to deliver excess returns over the long-term."

Especially if the four "green" companies are successful, Gore and the other GIM investors stand to make a lot of money. That is all well and good, but he should be chastised for pretending to be "greener" than he really is. After all, he is taking money from one pocket and putting it in another, and that's just another example of the limousine liberals recurring con-games.

In fact, Gore is the one who is truly playing on our fears.

Prince Charles and Al Gore Know Best

2007-02-28T10:08:00.000-05:00

It's getting to be tough to be a celebrity activist. First Al Gore gets caught with his energy-saving pants down when the you-know-what hits the fan about his personal energy usage at Chateau Gore. Then Prince Charles declares that the Big Mac should be banned. Now we find out that his own company produces a tasty pasty of the Cornish variety that has the Big Mac beat, hands down, in the not-so-nutritious category. I wish we could see these celebrities popping back to their rightful vocations and quit popping off about things that could come back to bite them, or us.

*

Prince Charles may be King of England one day, but we declared independence a long time ago and
neither we nor they want the situation returned to the 1700's. So, I don't care about Prince Charles' royal displeasure with Big Mac's and I don't care about his pasties (or Camilla's pasties for that matter). He can issue all the royal decrees he wants about food and it won't affect me in the slightest.

If Al Gore's political aspirations are revived, due to all the adulation derived from his movie, his Oscar, and his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he attains the oval office, it is possible, no, likely that his decrees would have a big effect on me, my children, and the children of the world. He would make the Kyoto treaty become just the first step to the ruination of the US economy and the capitalist system itself. This of course is the true aim of the uber-greenies, forced to shift tactics with the downfall of the Soviet Union.

*photo credit

The Agony of Conflicting Agendas, Part I

2007-02-26T16:33:00.000-05:00

Now that genealogists are on the trail of political candidates' ancestry, is anyone safe from the sins of their forefathers, or foremothers? We find that Al Sharpton is just a few degrees of separation from the late Strom Thurmond, in that Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by great, great, something-or-other of Thurmond.

Also, zealous genealogists have found that Mormon Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has the taint of having a great-grandfather who enjoyed the blessings of five wives as well as a great-great grandfather who must have been a tired man with twelve wives. It's probably not at all unusual to find polygamists in current Mormon's families, way back somewhere.

John McCain and Rudy Guliani must be poring over family bibles searching for the black sheep in their families. Somehow I doubt that any democrat candidates have much to worry about. Hillary could have a mad ax-murdering uncle, a great-grandmother who talked to the trees, and a two-headed cousin somewhere but the MSM wouldn't deem it worthy of mention. (They are afraid to mention anything negative about her husband who actually may have influence over her. They have been warned to lay off the "Bill" topics.)

It doesn't seem to matter that Mitt Romney probably hardly knew his great- grandfather, much less learned at his knee about the wonders of polygamy. His great great-grandfather would have been long gone before Mitt's time. The point of the whole implication is guilt by very slight association. After all, it (polygamy) must be in his blood. It doesn't matter that he has one wife, to whom he has been married for 37 years and has personally condemned polygamy, as did the Mormon church in 1890. HBO has piled on with it's "Big Love" program featuring those of renegade Mormon sects who practice polygamy defying federal law. The Democrats and MSM don't want to take any chances with this good-looking Republican guy. They need to stress his "Mormon" background as much as possible without actually saying anything negative about it.

Look for similar reports about any other candidates the MSM want to eliminate from any remote possibility that they could be elected. I'm sure Hillary's minions have hired investigators galore and genealogists if necessary to double check eash rival's past and present, even though she personally is against the politics of personal destruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another view of polygamy...

While I personally am against multiple wives or husbands and agree with its illegality, (especially the proclivity of some "Mormon" fundamentalists for procuring underage wives), at least the husbands are responsible for the wives and the issue of these marriages.

Consider other situations. In some communities, unmarried women, more often black, produce children and may not even know who the fathers are. These irresponsible "fathers" jump from woman to woman, or girl to girl, as the case may be, producing offspring and sometimes not knowing who they are. These children are being "raised" by mothers who may not be able to care for them. So the society, either privately or through taxes, feeds the children, clothes the children, and provides housing. This irresponsibility doesn't seem to bother some people even though the basic famiiliar facts are similar: (1) Group A has one man,several women, who produce many children. (2) Group B has one man, several women, who produce many children. From here, however, the similarities end. Group A's man supports the family, monetarily and emotionally. Group B's man may not even know how many are in his "family" and certainly doesn't support them adequately if at all. There is even the threat that Group B's children will inadvertently marry or mate incestuously, a nearly universal taboo.

We hear little overt criticism of Group B's situation from liberals. It's just another gem of diversity, like gay "marriages", or even no marriages at all. They leave it to the conservatives to mention the pitfalls of Group B's type of family.
You tell me which group does the most harm to society in the short or the long run?
Does sit make sense to make criminals of responsible men and let the others off the hook?

The Classics Revisited

2007-02-22T10:24:00.000-05:00

Like most people in school, both high school and college, I suffered through the classics with just enough effort to pass required tests and write required essays. Consequently, I never felt like I really appreciated what the classics have to offer.

Recently, I came across a required reading list from St. John's College, Annapolis, Maryland. I was stunned to see just the Freshman list. It is dedicated to classical Greek literature and starts with the Iliad, followed by the Odyssey, and goes from there, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Plato, Thucycides and more, much more. You can find the complete four-year list here.

I decided to work my way through as many works on the list as I could during the year. I started with the Odyssey which I read many years ago, when I was too young to understand a lot of it, much less appreciate it. I can honestly say that my second reading was an enjoyable experience. Now I am ready for the Iliad. I know, I should have started with the Iliad, but I had the Odyssey on hand and so read it first. I am one who likes to make notations in my own books and thus didn't want to borrow the Iliad from the library where I work. After finishing the Odyssey, I started Sophocles Oedipus Trilogy, Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus, and Antigone. I had read Antigone in French and got a lot more from the English translation.

Maybe the freshman list will be more than I can handle in one year. I have many other reading lists to wade through, and other avocations to occupy my time. I have been trying to dedicate at least one hour a day to my "serious" reading. Maybe if I quit doing daily blogs (I have more than one), I could proceed more quickly.

I urge you all to find just one book on the list that you either have never read or read under duress and give it a go.

BBC Releases US Contingency Plans to Attack Liechtenstein

2007-02-20T15:30:00.000-05:00

The BBC has reported today that the US military has developed contingency plans to invade the Principality of Liechtenstein. President Bush has addressed the UN in a futile attempt to persuade the world body to grant its approval of this vital plan to keep Liechtenstein from further developing its export of dental tools.

Congressional Democrats have denounced these plans as further proof of the Republicans' greed and desire to obtain the small country's barley crop in order to bolster the US beer industry's need for this vital ingredient. Sen. Clinton immediately announced that she will take Anheuser-Busch's profits and use them to fund exploration of alternative beverages.

This is just the latest BBC revelation, joining earlier ones concerning US contingency plans to invade Tahiti and Hollywood.

Plum Assignment, Plum Ridulous

2007-02-20T10:36:00.000-05:00

In the most ethical Congress in the history of mankind, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ready to name Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) to an important seat on the Homeland Security Committee. The fact that he is being investigated by the feds in a corruption probe was apparently easy for her to overlook, in spite of the fact that she saw fit last fall to remove him from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee. At the time she was trying to demonstrate her commitment to returning Congress to righteousness, after it was tarnished by Republican control.

If you remember, $90,000 was found by the FBI in Jefferson's home freezer. Talk about your frozen assets. The money was part of $100,000 delivered to Jefferson and videotaped in a sting operation. So far, two people have already pleaded guilty to bribery and corruption in the case, one a former Jefferson aide and the other a Louisville businessman, Vernon Jackson, who sought Jefferson's help in obtaining technology contracts in Africa. See more here. Although he has not been indicted, the investigation of Jefferson is ongoing.

In addition to this investigation, Jefferson took some heat due to his use of military trucks and a helicopter to check on the condition of his house in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. When this occurred, people were still stranded in and atop their homes waiting for National Guard trucks and helicopters to come to their rescue. After being in his house for an hour or more, he finally left with a laptop and other non-identified items.

Rolling Stone magazine named William Jefferson one of the top ten worst congressmen. Yes, a Democrat was named to this top ten list. Need I say that the other 9 were Republicans? From Rolling Stone? No, I needn't. But that is an indication of the near certainty of his corruption.

This is a politician from New Orleans, and like Ray Nagin, Jefferson had no problem being re-elected in November, 2006.

This is a man soon to be on the Homeland Security Committee. How secure do you feel?

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 03/27/08 11:30 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reaffirmed her position that superdelegates should not “overturn the will of the voters” in the face of criticism from top donors to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). “The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said in a statement late Wednesday. “This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.” In a letter first reported Wednesday on talkingpointsmemo.com, 20 top Hillary fundraisers and donors blasted Pelosi for saying that when the presidential nominating contest nears its conclusion, superdelegates should support whoever leads in pledged delegates. They cited remarks she made to ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on March 16. “We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes,” the letter said.