Relax! Only 1 in 4 Want to Kill You

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

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

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....

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"

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosie Strikes Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!!!

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

[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."