Prince Charles and Al Gore Know Best

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

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

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

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

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?

.

Will History Repeat Itself?

In thinking about the possibility of another presidential dynasty-in-the-making, (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...) one looks into the future, past 2012, 2016 and 2020, to espy upcoming Bushes and Clintons who could be potential continuations of the family lines. As was mentioned in Hot Air today, here, neither Bill and Hillary nor George W. and Laura have male issue. That leaves Chelsea, Barbara and Genna, none of whom is of proper age/experience to assume the family mantle and carry on the White House tradition. At first glance, the only male available is Jeb's son, George P. Bush, who could, after divorcing his current wife, marry Chelsea; their heirs could take up where their ancestors left off, forming a modern-day "Tudor"-type dynasty.

In the days of the Wars of the Roses, the throne of England was pitched back and forth between the York and Lancasters, squabbling over who was the legitimate heir after the death of Edward III.

Edward's golden boy, the Black Prince predeceased him, leaving Edward III's 1o-year-old grandson, Richard II to rule the kingdom after his death. After a mental decline, Richard was forced to abdicate and his cousin Henry IV became king. As a descendent of John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III, and by bypassing the heirs of Lionel, the second son, Henry's rule and those of his son, Henry V and grandson, Henry VI, were in dispute. Henry VI also had mental problems and Richard, Duke of York became Protectorof the Throne. As a direct descendent of Lionel, the Duke's ambitions led to civil war and the throne left the Lancaster Red Rose for the York white one, under Edward IV.

There followed a succession of battles and Edward IV, the son of the Duke of York, was crowned. He ruled for 9 years, was deposed once, and returned as king for a prosperous reign of twelve more years. After his death, and the mysterious disappearance of his two sons, his brother, the much maligned* Richard III, ruled for 2 years, until his death at the Battle of Bosworth Field, crying, according to the Bard, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!"

The upshot of this family rivalry was the matrimonial merging of the two branches into one. With the wedding of Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth of York, to Henry VII, the victor at Bosworth, the Tudor line was formed. The Tudor line included the two Henrys, VII and VIII, the sickly boy king Edward VI, Mary I (Bloody Mary), and the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I. These five monarchs ruled for 118 years, marking the end of the Middle Ages in England. The English Renaissance brought a blossoming of the arts and literature; exploration of the New World began and the world saw the beginning of the British Empire supported by the Royal Navy's dominance of the open seas.

Perhaps an arranged marriage, quite common among European royalty in the past, between the Bushes and the Clintons could bring a harmonious resolution to the current dissonant political climate in the US and bring a period of continued prosperity and contentment.

* Richard was accused, although not contemporaneously, of the double murder of his nephews and was portrayed ever after as a monster whose jealous desire for the crown led him astray.

Charlize Theron - Typical Clueless Celebrity

Charlize Theron, a gifted actor who recently made a documentary about Cuban rappers, has compared Cuba with the United States. She believes and states in a CNN interview that both countries have a "lack of freedom". Hmmmm. In a way, she is right, of course. We are not free to do whatever we want, whenever we want to, and with or to whomever we want. Same with the Cubans. As far as I can see that is the extent of the similarities.

We are, however, free to say whatever we want, disagree with anyone we want, including and especially, our government and its policies and leaders, with only a few limitations on the situations. (Libel, slander laws come to mind, as does the famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation.) We can also do our disagreeing with no fear of retribution from the government.

Cubans are free to say very little against their government. The prisons there are chock-full of those who took a chance and spoke their minds against the sixty-odd year-old totalitarian communist regime under Fidel Castro. Miami is chock-full of those who took the chance to "git while the gittin' was good". They were not "free" to leave, but preferred the very real risk of death to staying in the virtual prison that is Cuba. They arrived one by one and by the score, floating across the sea in life rafts, rowboats, Jerry-rigged arks with little more than hope to keep them afloat. I don't remember scores, let alone thousands, of US citizens fleeing to Cuba's Promised Land, or anywhere else for that matter, and the luxurious life of freedom to be had there, not to mention the world's best health care system.


Speaking of Cuba's health care system, check out this to see some photos of what the average Cubans have for medical facilities. I keep hearing and reading about Cuba's "world class health care". In actuality, it is a two-tiered of system similar to what the US would have under Hillarycare - top rate care for high government muckety-mucks and tourists with dollars or euros to spend, and the leftovers, if there are any, for the average and poor Cubans.

During Fidelissimo's recent illness, there was a spate of reporting on the most excellent healthcare system in Cuba. The following quote is from guardianabroad.

While the global media's focus...usually rests on Cuba's often poor human rights record, its lens does not reflect the fact that Cuba's health system is praised by British and American health care managers alike as one of the world's best. Indeed it is the envy of public health officials in many developed countries, both for its effectiveness and cost efficiency.

That article goes on to highlight the impressive doctor/patient ratio, some 1/150, compared to Britain's 1/1000, and Canada's 1/2000 to 1/4000, depending on geographical location. The US, as of 2003, had approximately 800,000 active physicians for a population of roughly 300 million, for a ratio of 1/375, if my math serves me well. That makes us a lot better than Britain or Canada, and maybe not as good as Cuba in that respect. But a great doctor/patient ratio doesn't amount to a hill of pills if there are no pills to give the patient.

There is a chronic shortage of needed drugs available in pharmacies while a good supply is maintained for the select recipients of Cuba's top-tier medical services. For Cubans in the tourist industry with US tips in dollars, obtaining the drugs they need can be easy. But often such basic supplies as aspirin and bandages must be supplied by US relatives, or bartered for with whatever is available, including prostitution. See this for more examples.

Dr.Hilda Molina, an esteemed Cuban physician, honored by Fidel for contributions to Cuban medicine, resigned in protest of the preferential treatment given to foreigners while denying Cubans the basic and sometimes critical care they needed. After speaking out and returning the medals awarded to her, she tried to travel to Argentina to visit family and was denied a visa. I guess Dr. Molina's freedom to travel from her country was not as available as the freedom to travel that Charlize has from hers. See here for more on Dr. Molina.


But if Ms Theron is ever in Cuba once again, I am certain that she would be free to partake in the health-care system reserved for high echelon people should she be unfortunate, or fortunate, enough to require it.

Centcom's Quote of the Month

"THE CHALLENGE PLAYING OUT ACROSS THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST IS MORE THAN A MILITARY CONFLICT. IT IS THE DECISIVE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE OF OUR TIME. ON ONE SIDE ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND MODERATION. ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE EXTREMISTS WHO KILL THE INNOCENT, AND HAVE DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE."

George W. Bush

I have subscribed to the US Centcom coalition Bulletin here and found the above quote. President Bush should step up into his bully pulpit each week and state the above repeatedly so that there is a possibility, ever so slight, that it will sink into the thick skulls of the American people who insist on keeping their pointy heads in the sand and their dirty fingers in their ears.

Obviously, he thinks he has done so. But the results of the past November election and what we see and hear in the MSM tell us that once again the President and other leading Republicans have done an abysmal job of communicating the very real threat the Islamic fundamentalists present to the US specifically and western civilization as a whole. Communication to the populace is one of the most important jobs the President and his people have. I cannot understand why, with all the available talent, this administration lacks the basic skills to get this crucial message to the people. It boggles my mind.

President Bush should spell out just what exactly "destroy our way of life" would mean. Some obvious, to me, examples come to mind. If going to church or synagogue once a week is an inconvenience, how about umpteen calls to prayer each day? No entertainment industry, to speak of, no sports bars, no Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, no free time (calls to prayer, remember, also, the little woman won't be allowed to driveand running all errands will be on the agenda), no six packs at the convenience store, and no swimsuit issue from Sports Illustrated. You would think that the feminists in this country would be screaming bloody murder about the threat of Islamic world conquest. After all, they are not happy with their lives here in the good old USA now. They see sex discrimination and harrassment all over the place as it is and have to invent it where it isn't. They ain't seen nothin' yet, baby. Burn their bras? Heck, there will probably be no bras to burn. You don't need one in a burkah.

Remember how upset Bill Clinton was after 9/11 that he didn't get the chance to lead the country in a "just" war? I am cynical enough to assume the Democrats, at least the intelligent ones, are aware of the threat but choose to keep silent about it. I can only conclude that their Bush Derangement Syndrome prevents them acknowledging the threat at present, and that they are hoping that a President from their own party after the 2008 election will be the one "lucky" enough to rally the people against this enemy and spur the fight to victory against the Islamic fascists. Then they can revive our stagnant economy, you know the one Bush ruined after Clinton's phenomenal success.

Pardon me while I check the Dow Jones. I may want to cash in some of my investments.

A woman, a Black, and a Mormon...

That sounds like the beginning of a joke. "A woman, a black, and a Mormon were in a rowboat together...." or "A woman, a black, and a Mormon arrived at the pearly gates and met St. Peter....". You can finish the joke as you wish.

If the "woman" that I am thinking of succeeds in achieving her ambition, the joke will be on us. We will have fallen for one of the oldest scams in the world, the bait and switch. Maybe it's more like a shell game. She is the pea hiding under the shell. Which one? I'll bet it's the shell on the left, the far left. Oh, she's pretending to be under the one in the middle, with occasional feints to the one on the right, but I know it's the left one. What else is under the shell? Higher taxes, socialized medicine, higher taxes, more governmental control of your daily life, the return of the "Fairness" Doctrine, higher taxes, the return of Bill Clinton to active participation in government. Once those little goodies are out from the shell, there's no putting them back. Her sex may prevent her from being elected.

The"black" that I referred to is more of an unknown quantity, an unripe pea, let's say, but he hides under the left shell too. What accomopanies him in the shell is probably similar to the above mentioned items. If he loses, I expect all sorts of tirades about how underlying racism, institutional racism, rampant racism, whatever, prevented this clean and articulate young man from achieving his goal. His race may prevent him from being elected.

The Mormon is either under the middle shell or the one on the right. He keeps shifting positions. Nobody really knows what he keeps with him under the shell. Massachusetts elected him governor. Imagine that. The state that loves, JFK(erry), Teddy Kennedy, et al., elected a Republican as governor. I don't know that much about the man and so will be studying his deeds during his governorship. But the mysteries of his religion may prevent him from being elected.

I didn't mention earlier the other likely front-runner, the seasoned senator from Arizona. The "Maverick". While he stays mostly under the shell on the right, he sometimes jumps around and hides in the most unexpected places. Seems a bit unpredictable, shall we say. Maybe his age will prevent him from being elected.

Whatever happens during the next year and a half, it will be very interesting.

Did you hear the one about the.... Never mind.

Oh, the weather outside is frightful

Sorry for the lack of recent postings. Had a busy weekend and a lazy attitude. I can't say there has been nothing to blog about. Obama's wife's comment about the chance of her husband getting shot at the gas station is just one item worth mentioning. Also JFK(erry) is in the news again; he's making statements about Iran supplying Iraqi insurgents with arms and other support. I wonder when he'll regret saying that. Probably does already.

There seems to be an increase in the articles and comments from the "Global Warming Deniers." I don't even want to mention Ellen Goodman's comparison of GWDeniers to Holocaust deniers. It was an insult.

Anyway, when I get my act together I will have a coherent posting. Well, as coherent as my usual ones are.

Ta-ta.

Morgana AKA Sloan

Hey, State Climatologist. Oregon says, "Adieu."

Oregon's governor wants to fire the State Climatologist because he's skeptical that humans are the main cause of The Hot Death (Global Warming). He's been the State Climatologist since '91, but disagrees with Oregon's position and policy on global warming so, he has to go. 

This is what would have happened a few hundred years ago if a medical doctor proposed the theory that some diseases were caused my microscopic little thingies called germs. He would also have had to go because everyone then knew diseases were caused by night air, or curses, or witches, or by God as divine retribution.  

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nowadays, the left can't abide anyone who disagrees with their mantra(s) of the day.  Civil discourse and debate is not allowed.  Just get rid of the dissenters one way or the other.  

The one good thing resulting from the recent publicity about dissenting, or at least skeptical, accredited climatologists, and scientists of other stripes, is that it will give support to others hesitant  so far to jump on the bandwagon.  Maybe the cat is starting to peek out of the bag and maybe real debate can begin.

Versace Nixes Hill's Pants

She has spoken. Donatella Versace declares that Hillary should give up
pantsuits for dresses and skirts. The length should be to the knee,
preferably black with a short jacket. She needs to show her feminine
side.

What feminine side? The one that throws lamps and cusses like a
drunken sailor? The one that puts up with a philandering husband and
is publicly humiliated by him? The one that doesn't bake cookies and
doesn't stay at home "standing by her man"? The one who has nothing
but blind ambition, who has sold her soul to the devil to achieve
what power she has and sill craves more? Oh. THAT feminine side.

Hillary wears mainly pantsuits, when there is a chance of a
photograph of her making the wires, for one reason only. Her legs.
She has fat legs and unfortunately, there is nothing she, the DNC, or
GOD can do about that. So, she covers them up. Remember back in the
90's when she did wear skirts she often wore dark tights to
camouflage the leg issue?

It didn't work. People noticed her legs and commented on them. She
is hoping that no one will republish any of those old photos of her
legs because she doesn't want to be the butt of any more jokes than
she will be anyway.

I would have more respect for her if she said "Damn it all, these are
the legs God gave me and they work just fine, thank you very much."

Versace is hoping for the best for Hillary in the '08 election. "I
admire her for her determination, which will hopefully take her to
the White House," Versace told Germany's weekly newspaper Die Zeit in
an interview. She hasn't seen her legs or she would be confirming the
pantsuit choice.

This brings up the issue of whether or not such silly things should
be determining factors in people's decisions on whom to select for
any office, much less the office of the Presidency. Of course they
shouldn't. But obviously, Hillary thinks people will look at her
legs and say "Ugh".

Algore thought people would select him if he followed Naomi Wolf's
advice and wore brown suits, also if he styled his hair like Reagan's
in the second debate, also if he had cosmetic facial contouring to
resemble Reagan. It didn't work (or it did in some peoples' minds)
and so we have GWB, a man who wouldn't style his hair on anyone's
advice, a man who wears whatever he thinks is appropriate, at the
ranch or in the oval office.

Wonder what Versace thinks of his wardrobe?

The Hot Death revisited

It has been very interesting to notice the beginnings of ackowledged dissent among scientists in the global warming/climate change debate, not that it has been much of a debate. Normally, anyone who questions the real effect of humans and their activities on the changing climate has been dismissed with scorn. Maybe the apparent existence of skeptical climatologists and other scientists will continue to make waves in the MSM and real debate can begin before the course of civilization is altered irrevocably.

My friend Ken Falkenstein has written an essay that I reprint here.

"In the first half of the 20th century, the eugenics movement was as in vogue among the intellectual elite as man-made global warming is today. Euguenics was the psuedoscience that advocated breeding undesirable traits out of the gene pool. Undesirable traits included below-average intelligence, physical and mental handicaps, and ultimately "inferior" races, including blacks and Jews (which was considered a race by eugenicists). Leading advocates of eugenics included George Bernard Shaw and Alexander Graham Bell. Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were also sympathetic to the eugenics movement. Funding was provided by many philanthropic organizations, most prominently the Carnegie Foundation. The movement succeeded in having laws enacted to sterilize the mentally disabled and to strictly prohibit acceptable people from marrying and/or having children with people with undesirable traits. Hundreds of thousands of people were sterilized in California and Virginia, and a lesser amount in several other states. Virginia also passed very strict laws specifying who could marry whom, and these laws were strictly enforced for more than 3 decades. Even the US Supreme Court, with a decision penned by the great Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upheld forced sterilization laws with the rationale that society has a right to breed "idiots" (the word he actually used in his reported opinion) from the gene pool. (This case techincally remains good law today, although no respectable attorney would ever cite it as legal authority.)

"Although eugenics was based solely on theories and models and could never withstand the rigors of scientific method (i.e. attempting to disprove it), it was enthusiastically promoted as "science" by its advocates, who consisted of society's most respected intellectuals and spread to political leaders. Real scientists who spoke out against eugenics found themselves ruthlessly attacked, shunned, and cut off from both government and private grant money until they were ruined. Finally, almost no one was willing to speak out for fear of ruining their careers and reputations.

"The movement spread from the US and Britain to Germany, where Adolf Hitler and the Nazis took the idea to its extreme and set about murdering undesirables, most prominently Jews, from every country that fell under its control. Only after the Holocaust did the eugeneics movement fade, but even then it took until the 1960s to end forced sterilization in the US and even longer to remove many of the marriage limitations from state codes.

"The man-made global warming movement is now on the same path. The entire movement is based solely on theories and models, none of which have been or are even capable of being proven (or, more importantly, disproven). In fact, many of the same people who are on the man-made global warming bandwagon today were equally alarmist in the 1970s about the then-in-vogue theory that we were entering a new ice age. Nevertheless, anyone who dares speak truth to this perverse power finds himself attacked by all quarters, shunned by the intellectsia, and cut off from both public and private funding. In a sick twist, leading advocates such as Al Gore have actually compared those of us who challenge the lack of scientific basis for the man-made global warming theory to Holocaust deniers. (The obvious difference being, of course, that the "question" of whether the Holocaust occurred is capable of being subjected to a test of disproving it, and there is enormous and overwhelming evidence proving conclusively that it occurred. There is no proof whatsoever that the current warming trend in some [but not all] parts of the world is man-made, and advocates must rely on models that are not capable of being subjected to scientific method.)

"The news media, academia, and governments in the US at every level that are controlled by Democrats are now working in tandem to stifle dissent and ostacize dissenters so that they can enact draconian anti-Capitalist measures in the name of fighting man-made global warming. The British government is now showing Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, in its public schools without providing a counterbalancing viewpoint, and some school districts in the US asre trying to do likewise. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has just created a new special committee on global warming and did so because the chairman of the committe that would normally have jurisdiction over this issue is one of the few Democrats in Congress who is not in lock-step with the man-made global warming movement.

"History proves that what is happening right now is dangerous. Good science is being stifled in the name of a psuedoscientific political movement so that that movement can force irresponsible, tyrannical, and dangerous public policies into law. It is vital that good and enlightened people stand up to this intellectual bullying and continue to insist that public policies be based on sound science and not the psuedoscientific theory that is in vogue with the intellectual eleite at the moment."

Thanks to Ken for his contribution.

Winter, Sweet Winter at last we greet thee....

Winter, real winter, has finally hit the midwest. Zero degrees, cold wind, and now some snow. As much as I enjoyed scooting around doing Christmas shopping in fifty degrees, it felt wrong.

I remember the winters of my youth, watching the snow fall at night, hoping, usually against hope, that we would get deep enough snow to close school the next day. Wake up early. Turn on the radio. Hang on the announcer's every word wait, wait to hear good ol' "Fairview Elementary School closed today". Run around shouting with my sister, "Hoorray, hooray, we don't have school today!" Build a snowman. Prepare a pile of snowballs to ambush Daddy when he arrives home from work. Always a "surprise" that he stops the car a few blocks away and arms himself with a few snowballs to ambush us. Badger him to take us to the park for sledding down "Suicide Hill". Stay outside until our fingers and toes are numb, then finally give in and go inside to suffer the needles and pins as the feeling returns to frigid fingers and toes. Sip hot cocoa with rosy cheeks and runny noses.

Now, Daddy is gone, "Suicide HIll" fenced off, and middle-aged fingers and toes don't tolerate the cold as well. But each time the lawns are blanketed with snow, or the whiff of cocoa hits my nose, I smile and remember it all as if it were yesterday.

In this corner, Joe Biden, and in the opposite corner....

Everyone is all agog about Joe Biden's comment concerning the amazingly "clean" Barack Obama the other day in the interviewof Biden in the New York Observer. As my friend Elaine said, "Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry." Well, I suspect Mr. Biden is a teensy bit sorry now.

But the "clean" Obama hubbub is overshadowiwng a much more telling statement that Biden made regarding John Edwards, and I mean telling about Biden, not Edwards. I will quote from the Observer:


Mr. Biden seemed to reserve a special scorn for Mr. Edwards, who suffered from a perceived lack of depth in foreigh policy in the Presidential election of 2004. "I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about," Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards' advocacy of the immdiate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq. "John Edwards want you and all the Democrats to think, 'I want us out of there,' but when you come back and you say, 'O.K., John'" - here the word "John" became an accusatory, mocking refrain - "what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?" Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it -- they are just smart enough not to enunciate it."


What do you say now, Joe? You sound a little petulant, Joe. Are you a crybaby, Joe? I heard talk like that in the playground, Joe. Are your hairplugs bothering you, Joe? I didn't know Delaware was a slave state, Joe. Only Indians can go into a 7-11, Joe?

I hope he doesn't leave the race any time soon. He's so interesting.