The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The dangerous concept that George Bush is the only enemy

I did not see the entire speech from beginning to end. I heard the beginning on the radio as I drove to the airport to pick up my son. I saw the tail end, and later saw some of the middle when Fox replayed it. On its face it did not appear to be a great speech and so far I have not seen anyone claim it to be great. I have seen claims that it was good, and I would buy that. I would also claim that during the speech Bush landed some body blows on the Dems that were not particularly obvious. One of the subtle body blows is making statements that the Dems would either be slow to stand or not stand at all, while the GOP stands with thunderous applause. Several times I thought the average person would be inwardly cheering and probably scratch their heads wondering why the Dems are not also cheering.

The problem with the Democrats and the kook fringe they are enslaved to is that in their mind, there is only one enemy: George W. Bush. This is dangerous as it completely undermines efforts to deal with real world dangers. One critical part of the speech dealt with Iran:
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon — and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions — and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.
The same liberals who critized Bush for "going it alone" are those who will undermine his efforts to call on the world body to bring the necessary pressure to bear on Iran, to spite him. It is not Bush's sole responsibility to deal with Iran. The responsibility is on all nations to deal with, and if we are to have a United Nations the greatest share of the reponsibility falls on Annan and the Security Council. The constant and insatiable desire to bash Bush will surely undermine the necessary steps to actually deal with the problem.

Actually, the anti-Americanism around the globe fueled by the anti-Bush liberals in the US and abroad is likely the culprit for the situation in Iran. I am sure this former hostage taker, now Iranian leader was emboldened by the corruption driven resistance by the world to deal with Iraq and the political games that have followed by France, Germany, China and Russia to look for every opportunity to tweak Bush. A signal was given through those actions that the world would not act to stop him and the US would be too busy in Iraq and mending fences to take action. There lies the danger of thinking we only have one enemy. Sure, liberals pay lip service to dealing with the other enemies; but it is not sincere and is never separated from bashing Bush. That is a dangerous game that will likely cost lives.

Hold your nose folks - Landrieu to challenge Nagin

When I read this one, the word that came to mind was "ripe". The Landrieu family under the famous patriarch "Moon" has held a lot of political power in Louisiana for some time. I think they sense that the chances are low that New Orleans will become "chocolate" again any time soon, and are closing in for a power grab. Moon's son Mitch may be challending Nagin to be the New Orlean's mayor. The current demographic challenges Nagin to keep in office and with a political machine already in place Mitch's chances could be nicknamed "the Big Easy".

It is interesting that sister Senator Mary Landrieu after Katrina threatened to "punch" whoever tried to blame state and local officials for the poor government response, as NewsMax reminds us. I wonder if she will punch Mitch when he calls Nagin for any shortcomings.

Perhaps this is not simply a Landrieu power play, after all. With Governor Blanco and Nagin in the hot seat, thousands of normally Democrat voters displaced to other states and Mary acting somewhat irrationally lately, the whole Louisiana Democrat machine could be in danger of an overthrow. Mitch's run in New Orleans could simply be a bid to shore up the Democrat position before future rough waters when Blanco runs for re-election.

John Kerry has 10 million dollars to bloody Dem nominee

NewsMax is reminding us about John Kerry's war chest he carried over from the 2004 campaign that has expanded with contributions to over $10 million. You will recall that there was some anger out there that Kerry had not blown the whole wad trying to topple Bush. While post-election fundraising is well below what Hillary Clinton has accumulated, Kerry could add enough by 2008 to make things interesting.

There are two choices the Democrat hopefuls can make when running: run against Bush who is not up for re-election, or run against each other. Either option holds a lot of promise for plenty of entertainment. The best option, though, is to see the Dems bloody each other. I predict the GOP primary will be decided by Super Tuesday, but the Dems may stick it out much longer. While there may be multiple people running on the GOP ticket, I think it will be a pretty clear choice. The Dems, however, will provide a spectrum of options. The kook side of the Dems will be battling the centrist Dems. A long way off I know, but fun to think about.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Time to rip that silly mask off the teacher's union's face

I have linked to a good article from the WSJ Op-Ed about the school choice situation in Milwaukee. For any Star Trek fans, the piece begins comparing the teachers unions to the "Borg":
those destructive aliens in the "Star Trek" TV series who keep coming and coming until everyone is "assimilated."
The article then mentions the actions of the teacher's unions involving successful school choice programs:
We saw it in Florida this month when the state supreme court struck down a six-year-old voucher program after a union-led lawsuit. And now we're witnessing it in Milwaukee, where the nation's largest school choice program is under assault because Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle refuses to lift the cap on the number of students who can participate.
I say it is high time the people and any responsible media (oops a little weak in that area) rip the mask off of the face of the teacher's unions and expose them for what they are. Here there are programs proven to be helpful and effective, specifically in Milwaukee for minority children, and this group shows itself to be a greedy, self-serving, power-hungry, agenda driven shadow of humanity.

When you look at this under the microscope at the level of a single child, it is brought into perspective. We all have one life to live with the opportunities given us. In general, the United States is the land of opportunity where all can overcome any limitation and achieve greatness (as we have seen many times). In practice, the inner city presents unique obstacles that transcend mere poverty. It is very difficult to overcomes these obstacles, no matter how much money the government has thrown at the problem. So down at this microscopic level we see a whole life of an individual child hanging in the balance. Along comes something that has been proven to be able to break through the unique barriers of the inner city and offer the American Dream to these kids and the teacher's unions stand up and say "NO! You cannot have this dream!"

They resist a proven help to many thousands of children. They have resisted standards of excellence and testing for teachers to prove they are competent. The most destructive part is how these unions have entrenched themselves into the political landscape wasting resources battling political ideology instead of offering solutions.

They claim to care about their teachers and the students. They have it completely backwards where it comes to money. Here is an illustration: a girl wants to marry a guy and goes from dropping hints to pressing for a committment. In the meantime, she "shacks up" with him which in essence provides all of the "benefits" but no committment. Teacher's unions keep pressing for more money so we can "attract good teachers". What is completely missed here is what a position of weakness they are coming from. Stop blocking and balking at ideas that work and work toward solutions. When a product of excellence is delivered, the people will respect and appreciate that. At that time the union could bargain from a position of strength and people would be willing to support higher pay and benefits matching those results.

The bottom line is that results are not high on the priority list of teacher's unions. Their actions display they do not give a rip about each child that we see under the microscope has a chance at the American Dream. Their dreams appear closer to Marxist dreams than the American Dream. The people, the media and even members of the union themselves should not allow the union to wear a mask of caring and wanting to help, when in fact they don't give a rip. It is time we rip the mask off.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Walmart rules Chicago drools

This is a very funny story that shows how the liberal's misguided loyalty to unions cost them big money. To make my position clear, I am not against the concept of unions. Unions were started by the Republican party for good reasons. It is the application of the union concept in the last few decades and the "thuggish" nature of unions that cause me to view them negatively. Fair wages and a good working environment is one thing. While parents everywhere try to raise their kids to stay in school and make the sacrifice of going to college, it seems unions want to reward bypassing those good choices in life. Unions have often pushed the level of wages and benefits for their workers well beyond what the company can afford. We have seen this in the Airlines and in Auto manufacturing. There is video of the union employees of Eastern Airlines cheering after they successfully "took the company down" and, oh yeah, lost their jobs in the process.

Chicago as in most large cities are rabidly pro-union. Recently they rejected allowing Walmart to build a store in city limits because of their non-union status. This week Walmart began taking applications for employment in a new store opening in Evergreen Park, IL within one mile of the Chicago city limits! For all of the rabid talk recently about how bad an employer Walmart is, this store received over 25,000 applications.

The best part is all the revenue that will be coming to this store from Chicago citizens and none of the taxes going to Chicago. Too bad, Mayor Daley, you missed your chance. Not only are you going to miss out on all that revenue, Walmart will pull revenue from stores within the city limit. Look for Chicago to retaliate by raising taxes, which will then force more people to cross over to Evergreen Park.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Warning-media inconsistency heading our way

An interesting book has been written by a former Iraqi general Georges Sada named "Saddam's Secrets". Among other things discussed in the book, two major items are revealed: 1) Gen. Sada claims to have with his own eyes seen Osama Bin Laden in Iraq before 9/11. 2) He knows that before the war began the WMD were shipped to Syria.

Now I have no way of knowing if this guy is telling the truth or not and am not jumping on any bandwagon as if some slam-dunk has just been achieved. I would point to the obvious fact that he IS selling a book. So here is a guy that was in a high position in Iraq, in a position to have witnessed the things he claims and who is selling a book.

My main point is how has the media treated such people in the last few years? People like Richard Clark, James Risen and others who cast a bad light on George Bush. Well, they give them the superstar treatment and interview them as if the content of their books is gospel truth. How will Gen. Sada be treated? I am wondering if he will even get an interview by some of these media members like Katie Couric, etc. If he does get an interview, will they go gah gah over him like they did Richard Clark? Don't count on it.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Hamas victory reveals elephant in the room

AP is reporting that foreign leaders are shocked about the Hamas victory. I would state that it takes a mind completely given to appeasement to be shocked by this election outcome. What the election actually has done is to reveal the elephant in the room that myopic appeasers have failed to see and others have failed to talk about. The great thing about free elections is that they reveal people's real sentiments. We now see what has been obvious all along: the Palestinian people are of the same radical mindset of their former leader,Arafat, the father of terrorism. The anti-semetic fever that has swept across Europe and the "peace through weakness" Middle East policies of the Clinton administration have dumped this at the feet of the world. So what is the EU crowd blaming this on: democracy and free elections. Here is a quote from the article:
"It is obvious that the EU would never countenance funding a regime that continued an armed fight against Israel," said Ignasi Guardans, a Spanish member of the European Parliament. "But we cannot push for democracy and then deny the result of free and fair elections."
What we will likely see is people blaming the process as if the election "changed" these people into something else. Since many of these countries have been ruled by evil dictators, we often view the people as benevolent. There is no rule that the leader and people must be the same or different in their evil or benevolence. What we see here is that the people of Palestine are just as blood-thirsty as Arafat and Hamas as they have embraced them in free election.

So now that the elephant in the room has been revealed, we need to talk about it. Hopefully this will be a step closer in ending the love affair the world has had with the Palestinians siding against Israel. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to the United Nations and Kofi Annan to stop holding public appearances with maps that do not show Israel. The world no longer has cover to embrace a terrorist entity verbally or financially.

I have spoken before about the world (through the UN or alone) in their zeal to burn the US has not applied international pressure to end the insurgency in Iraq. It is much more fun to take pot-shots at Bush than to take responsiblity seriously. Here the world has another opportunity to apply pressure where needed. Some statements by world leaders demanding a denouncement of violence needs to be made. They should threaten to withhold any funding until the newly elected government proves it will abide by the world's demand of non-terrorism. If the world leaders do not stand firm on this, Hamas will be emboldened both by the election and the actions of the kook Iranian leader.

In summary, this election is a good thing. By lifting the veil of deception, they have forfeited the opportunity to act with duplicity. The world no longer has the luxury of pretending they have good intentions and can make bold demands that the peace process be two-sided. Also, since they have elected a group who's intent has always been clear it is no longer reasonable for the world to expect Israel to show the suicidal level of restraint imposed on it in recent years. When next attacked, they should be free to hit back and hard. I predict the new Hamasistan will once again be the Gaza Strip, and rightfully so.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Time to lift the facade

During the Reagan and Bush '41 years we heard a lot about the homeless and other social ills. The day William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (who downed Bush '41 for having 4 names during the campaign) these social ills miraculously disappeared. The homeless problem was non-existent for 8 years until Bush '43 took office and you immediately started hearing about it again.

Look for the same thing to happen in Canada. Just a few weeks back, all reports I ever heard gave the impression of Utopia on every front. Why don't we handle our crime like Canada? Why don't we handle health care and prescription drugs like Canada? On and on. Canada was the prime location liberals threatened to move to if Bush won a second term.

As NewsMax is reporting, now that conservatives have won the election, suddenly the facade is evaporating before our eyes. Apparently their crime rate is 50% higher than in the US. Look to the liberal media in both countries to begin making political hay out of this and begin to blame the conservative takeover. Of course they will wait a reasonable time period so it is not so obvious, but take it to the bank: it will come.

Of course outgoing loser Paul Martin is blaming Bush, the US and guns he claims are being smuggled over from the US. NewsMax points out the real story. Quoting David Frum in a National Post article, a contrast is shown between the US and Canada regarding gun policy and the crime rates:

"Moreover, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted ‘right-to-carry’ and ‘shall-issue’ handgun laws. During the same period, Canada’s gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry being implemented,” he added.

"Since declaring war on guns under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation’s history.”

So we see yet again that guns in the hands of private citizens acts as a deterrent to crime, while preventing gun ownership is a breeding ground for spikes in crime. Martin's futile attempt at logic is laughable. If Canadians were able to possess guns before the crackdown, but now are merely getting guns from across the border this would not account for a rise in crime. It is merely a question of changing suppliers. If the US had no guns, they would be smuggled in from elsewhere. The problem is not that criminals have more guns; if it could be tracked we would likely find that number remained fairly static. The problem is that good law-abiding citizens have less guns.

The problem with liberals is that they don't just want social ills fixed. They only want them fixed if their methods are used. If another method is used and works, instead of celebrating it they fight it and go into denial. We see this with gun ownership and crime rate, we see this with tax cuts and increased revenues and improved economy, we see this with school choice and improved education, and in many other areas. If a liberal idea is not used to fix it, liberals would rather not see it fixed.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Joel Stein tells it how cowardly Dems wish they could

My knee-jerk response to Joel Stein's LA Times piece was anger. While there is plenty to be angry about, the core portion of the article hits a bullseye debunking that silly premise that one can be vocally, underminingly, demoralizingly against war in Iraq but for the troops. As much of a creep as Stein is, he does what his fellow liberals are scared to do: Lump the war and the troops in the same "bad" bucket. He even claims that the troops are making an immoral and unjust decision when they pull the trigger. The positives I can say about Stein are that he is up front about how he believes (unlike many of his comrades) and is consistent.

Now to the negatives. Stein has exercised his freedom of speech to reveal that his contempt for the military and the sacrifices they have made to buy his rights. Every psuedo-positive item he might allude to about the troops is connected with a vile, disgusting statement. Here are some winners:

"Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on."

"I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas."

"Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of."

"We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful."

"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel."

"I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable."
This guy obviously views himself as the center of the universe and it stands out that he does not have a clue to reality. He also tips his hand by hinting that Kosovo was a good war because it is fighting "ethnic genocide". I guess the thousands of victims of Saddam: murdered, tortured, raped, etc. do not count as genocide; or they do not count because they were not ethnic. And of course he throws around the liberals favorite slogan "American Imperialism" for good measure.

Ok, so he is honest and upfront. Ok, so he has freedom of speech (purchased by those he loaths) so he won't go to jail for his words. However, the LA Times allowing this nonsense in their paper is foolish and offensive beyond measure. While they have the right to freedom of the press, they do not have the right for their paper to be purchased. I wonder how many precious remaining subscriptions this piece will cost the Times? Do they know what they are doing or on the day they close their doors will they be scratching their heads and wondering what went wrong?

I wonder how many liberals this piece will embolden to show their true colors?

Reminder of template changes

Just a reminder I am still making changes to the template. I had been waiting on advise from the author and he was kind enough to help out. Now I know what to do and it will just take a little experimentation to get it right.

Update: Finally after some help from the template author and from an associate KK, I was able to get the changes I wanted lined up. Thanks to both. I like the template, but wanted the post section wider. I now have the affect I wanted. Back to content.

Powerline Blog credits Captains Quarters with Canadian conservative win

Power Line is stating that Captain Ed from Captain's Quarters blog can credibly take credit for the conservative win in Canada. I have not followed closely enough to know if this is so, but I have predicted the blogosphere will flex its muscles this year. If Captain Ed has indeed played a part in this, then hats off. Of course we all know who played the biggest part in the liberal loss: the liberals. Canada, welcome to the logical world.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Rassmussen has interesting polling today

Rassmussen Reports are chock full of interesting polling data. First, it is showing that President Bush's approval numbers have decided to camp out at 45% for the last 4 days and average close to that for the last 2 weeks. Since it has stabilized and is not dropping, Bush is in a great position. I have put forth a theory on how transient surges in the polls are. There are two significant factors to consider: 1) the natural state of man is not contentedness. 2) You can only keep people continuously happy by appealing to elements they like while actually doing nothing. So you can't stay popular by resting on your laurels and once you start doing something, some will like it while others don't. My "slingshot" prediction may not be coming to pass exactly as I stated, but Bush is definitely saving his big push for just the right moment. These numbers allow him not to start too soon. If they stay at this level the best moment for maximum effect would be mid-May. If there are any strategists on the Dem's side, they will force him to start mid-March. Either way Bush is in good position.

There is an interesting polling section on the Abramoff scandal. Sometimes the American People can really pierce through the bologna from the media and see things as they really are. Here are a few questions and polling data:

Who is more ethical, a used car salesman or members of Congress? The Used Car Salesman blows away Congress 40% to 27%.
(Of course 33% are scratching their heads and asking for a hint)

Were Abramoff's attempts to influence congress typical of what lobbyists do? Yes: 47% No: 15% "Can you repeat the question" 38%

A solid 52% see that the Abramoff scandal involved members of both parties. Only 23% answered in a partisan way.

Here is my favorite: If Democrats gain control of congress will there be more, less or the same corruption? More: 24%, Less: 31%, Same: 39% (only 6% still in a fog)

If you are a liberal and frustrated by those statistics, you only have yourselves to blame. For the last 5 years your opposition has been on the same setting for every single issue: loud, this is the worst thing that has happened to the US in it's entire history and it is always Bush's fault. You are now shocked that people are quite immune to your "sky is falling" and "wolf" cries.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Martin Sheen to become pretend former president

AP is reporting that NBC has decided to pull the plug on West Wing. Since I never saw the show, I will not comment on what I have heard about it. I will leave those kind of actions to David Letterman. I will comment on how in politics and media, it is strange how actors pretending to be something can be taken seriously as if they were real. Martin Sheen is often shown as a "real" president, as if he has the experience to comment on presidential issues. I guess Martin Sheen can now officially go from being a pretend president to a pretend former president. I am sure liberals everywhere are in mourning that this show is ending.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

So libs what if this judge goes activist

Newsmax is reporting that a NYC woman is asking a judge to rule that she be granted $26,000 per year to send her two children to a private school. She points out that taxpayers dole out $13,000 per year per student for public education that is substandard. (Actually I have shown sources it is closer to $15,000)

The article shows events leading to her line of reasoning:
' A judge has ruled that city public school students were being deprived of a "sound basic education,” and last year said an additional $5.6 billion a year was needed to solve the problem.

Gov. George Pataki appealed the ruling, and the budget he recently proposed fell short of the court’s demand.

"My children can’t wait,” Payne told the Post.

"To assure that my kids get a good education and a fair chance in life, they need to attend a private school.” '

The logic here is flawed. The billions the judge ruled for and Pataki appealed will not solve the problem. Only school choice and obliteration of the teacher's union and the NEA will solve the problem.

Her request, though, is in essence asking the judge to rule for her to receive a school voucher bypassing the legislature that has turned down school choice. Now I ask how liberals would react if the judge would rule using the same logic the Massachussets Supreme Court used to force gay marriage on the state? The logic being 1) There is a situation that is "unjust" 2) The legislature won't fix it so 3) I will legislate from the bench. Liberals in NYC would blow a gasket at such a move, yet liberals never mind or protest when a liberal activist court bypasses the legislature to force something they want.

I am not holding my breath on this lady's chances, but hopefully the issue of school choice will get some attention.

Hillarious cartoon strip

I tried to get this cartoon strip to show up automatically, but it refused to. So you will have to go to the link.

This was "Hillarious". For all you libs who substitute a spelling correction for a logical point, it was intentional.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

School choice obstructionists throwing away the dream

On the heels of the excellent John Stossel 20/20 report comes an great editorial in the WSJ by John Fund. From yesterday's MLK Day, Fund shows how those against school choice are killing the dream that MLK spoke of. The piece centers around Milwaukee where in an urban area, school choice was squeaked in by former governor Tommy Thompson albeit on a limited basis. In order to get it through, Thompson agreed to a cap of 15% of public school enrollment can use their voucher to attend a private school.

In spite of continuing improvement of test scores, expansion of the program has been fought tooth and nail by the teacher's union. In fact, such pressure has resulted in the "cap" being interpreted in a more constricting way than originally set forth. Due to the cap being applied not only to strudents but also by school, new schools cannot open without forcing a reduction in another school or schools. So in the face of progress, this great program is being killed instead of expanded on.

The fact is that urban blacks and hispanics are paying the highest price for the sake of the teacher's union and liberalism in general. While Wisconsin and specifically Milwaukee is a bastion of liberalism, they show no sign of wanting to actually help those they always decry conservatives of oppressing. With proven progress whenever it is tried, it is the liberals who want to keep the poor black kids "on the plantation" instead of living "the dream".

There is no excuse for this to go on and there is no excuse that the liberal media has not brought a spotlight and pressure to bear to emancipate these kids from the chains of the unions. School choice needs to be the law of the land. The media and the unions should be ashamed for their culpability in this injustice.

Pre-empted by 24

Sorry folks, the last 2 days all of my spare time has gone to watching the 24 Season premier. Great so far. Too bad that guy took the cyanide capsule before Bauer could give him the special treatment. Boy to I hate a traitor.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

John Stossel hits it out of the park with Stupid in America

John Stossel's report "Stupid in America" is a great piece on school choice. While liberals and some duped conservatives are constantly crying about putting more money into the education system, this report shows clearly "...there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement." It points out that per pubil spending is twice as much as 30 years ago, yet we are not seeing a return on that investment.

To further the point there is no link between money and results, the story highlights Ben Chavis "...a former public school principal who now runs an alternative charter school in Oakland, Calif., that spends thousands of dollars less per student than the surrounding public schools." His school has the highest test scores in the city. Chavis also debunks the myth that poverty of the students is the main cause of poor performance. He says "Give me the poor kids, and I will outperform the wealthy kids who live in the hills. And we do it ."

Here is a link to a former post of mine showing New York City paying almost $15,000 per pupil per year and still doing poorly.

The Stossel story targets the real solution: school choice and competition. It shows a comparison of above average American students from New Jersey testing against students in Belgium and getting their clocks cleaned. Belgium has a voucher system where the money is linked to which school the student attends. The story states:
"American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids — it's a kind of voucher system. Government funds education — at many different kinds of schools — but if a school can't attract students, it goes out of business."
The full piece is worth reading. It is amazing that such proven results continue to meet resistance in the US. To me it boils down to two things: the power of the unions and the desire of the NEA to shove a non-educational agenda down the throats of our kids instead of teaching them. Liberals are the first to decry that conservatives don't care about kids. Why? Because we want to fix the problem instead of throwing more money at it. Liberals either are too stupid to understand the facts or they love power more than our kids. Their hypocrisy on this issue should be a stench to every thinking American. It is time to get choice and competition in our schools and time to get the liberal, socialist programming out.

NYT throws out a bone of truth in the body armor broohaha

The New York Times has sprung a leak by allowing an OP-ED to creep in that sheds the light of truth on the body armor issue. Although, you can only read page 1 of 8 for free. The rest you must be a paid subscriber and I am not taking that one for the team. Recently there was a report showing deaths that could have been prevented by body armor. Of course, the liberals jumped on this with both feet, including Hillary Clinton, and criticized the military for not having enough body armor for the troops. Some would leap before they looked into the facts while others would know the facts, but looked to advance a lie knowing the correction is tough to achieve after the fact.

The bottom line is, that if the armor were available in quantities 10 times more than needed, yet the soldiers wore none that report would have read the same way: the soldier's deaths could have been prevented by body armor.

The NYT article written by Andrew Exum who provides his credentials as follows:
"From 2000 until 2004, I was an infantry officer in the Army. I deployed with a light-infantry platoon to Afghanistan in 2002, then with a platoon of Army Rangers to Iraq in 2003 and back to Afghanistan in 2004."
He then gives a vivid picture of the difficulties wearing armor for the soldier in Iraq:
'But in Iraq, as well, the "soldier's load" is often unbearable. Most studies recommend that a soldier should not be burdened with more than one-third of his body weight. But if you take a 160-pound soldier and put 40 pounds of Kevlar and body armor on him and then he picks up an automatic weapon, ammunition, water and first aid equipment, it's not long before he is carrying half his body weight - and he is then expected to run, jump and fight insurgents, themselves carrying little more than a 10-pound AK-47. All of this, of course, often takes place in 120-degree heat in the cities of Iraq.'
He points out that a new design unveiled this week doubles the weight of an upper portion from 16 to 32 pounds. While it is easy to look at a battle wound and state if armor had been in that spot the soldier would not have been hit. It is not as easy to determine the effects of reduced mobility. The fact is that a soldier can die from both: too weighed down to move quickly so he was shot in a spot that does not have armor. There is a section next I tried to take smaller exerpts from, but too much is lost so the following shows how soldiers feel about the armor:
' As an Army captain told The A.P.: "You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."

Thankfully, many military leaders at both the tactical and strategic levels recognize they must strike a balance between protecting soldiers and preserving their mobility and fighting abilities. At some point, the public's desire to wrap ourtroops in a protective blanket of armor just gets ridiculous.

"We don't want a medieval knight," Maj. Gen. Stephen M. Speakes, the director of force development for the Army, said this week. "We are not going to be hoisted onto a horse." '

The article points to the time a reporter set up a soldier to ask Don Rumsfeld about having to use scrap metal for combat vehicles. Liberals fail to recognize that the Pentagon is also a government beauracracy. Though run more effeciently than most others in the government, it is what it is. The ball was dropped at that time and that situation was later corrected. Some liberals are dishinestly trying to combine that issue with this. In this case there are times where a commander of the soldier themself determines that mobility is more important than more armor.

Liberals do not view these issues through the prism of historical context of previous wars. Instead, they only view it from the perspective of "sticking it to Bush if at all possible". This is a free country and they are free to do so. They must realize that they don't have the right to be believed when they pursue an agenda rather than truth.

Internet pressure on Majority Leader choice

With the House Majority Leader open, Internet conservatives are looking to make sure a good choice is made. With charges of corruption in the air, conservatives want to ensure the right steps are taken to clearly prevent any further issues. Internet conservatives are not simply performing damage control as one skeptic posted, but want to see the GOP set stronger anti-corruption rules and guidelines. I for one am not simply content with the blogosphere showing the hypocrisy of Democrats who are also embroiled with Abramoff. I want to see strong leadership and policies that make it harder to get involved in these activities.

The Truth Laid Bear blog has a sign up pressuring the GOP to make sure the next leader is fully checked out to make sure there is no taint of corruption.

The National Review Online is going a step further and naming a recommendation: John Shadegg. Shadegg is viewed by NRO as "... the right man to clean house and restore the GOP majority to its core principles. " The best part of their endorsement is the following:
"Shadegg is a member of the class of 1994 who never lost the conservative, reformist spirit of that watershed year. He voted against No Child Left Behind, and, more recently, against the prescription-drug bill."
While I don't know enough to give a full endorsement, he sounds good to me from the NRO write-up. I have predicted this year will be a year the blogosphere will flex its muscles. I hope there is a strong impact that gets the GOP back on track to keep the movement going in the right direction. It's not enough that the Dems are a radical group of losers, either.

If Zawahari is dead he is stupid

I have not allowed myself to hope too strongly that we got #2 so I am not disappointed. Just when I was reading things that started to make me think it was possible, I read in the ABC News report the following:
"Villagers described seeing an unmanned plane circling the area for the last few days and then bombs falling in the early morning darkness."
When I read that, I began to worry that we did not get him. If the villagers saw the drone for a few days, it is not likely Zawahari would stick around. If he did, then he is more stupid than I thought. No, I don't think we got him. I hope I am wrong.

I wonder what the liberals are hoping? How many are fearful we got him? How many are preparing their diatribes that Bin Laden is still on the loose, so this would not matter? We have not heard from Osama since just before the '04 election if I remember correctly? We have heard from Zawahari a couple of times alone. Hmmm.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Lucky to be alive!

I posted recently about taking Chip to Benihana for his birthday. Here is a story of a man that died from visiting the same place. Apparently when he went, the chef during his cooking act let a shrimp fly at the man accidentally. Instead of opening his mouth to catch it, he ducked and wrenched his neck. The injury required surgery and complications caused the man's death.

I'm sure this is somehow Bush's fault. I feel lucky to have survived going to such a war-zone! Next time I go, maybe I will bring some protective gear. Nah, I'll just open my mouth if a shrimp comes flying at me. Hopefully the quick journey will cool it off.

Apparently the man's family is suing Benihana for $10 million. I wonder if a sign posted at the door that says "Watch for flying shrimp" would have limited their liability. As usual, we see that truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

YMCA goes socialist

For several years now my family has been members of the YMCA where we go to work out. I don't really care for the uppity elite gyms and the YMCA has had a decent family rate. I received a letter in the mail from them telling me they have Great News! They are now going to an income based rate structure. In other words, they have gone socialist. The membership fees will be based on how much income you make. While I am not rich, I will be paying the top rate as I did not make the cutoff.

My fear is that it may no longer be fun to be at the YMCA. Currently, there is just about the right number of people that go when I go. There is usually a heavy turnout in January due to post holiday guilt, but it trickles down. I fear there will be an influx of people that can suddenly afford a membership and I will be waiting to use the equipment. I also fear that next year they will start raising the top membership fee. They are keeping it the same for now. In recent years I am sure affordablility has been a factor that has kept the rates down. Now that lower incomes will pay less, the pressure to keep mine lower will be gone.

I think this is a poor idea and will end up reducing revenues at the YMCA as full paying members drop out and go elsewhere. I hope I am wrong and will stick around until I see what happens.

Political Yen/Yang wants to know what the UN plans to do about Iran

LA Sunsett over at the Political Yen/Yang blog has a post about the Iran nuclear situation. He wants to know what the UN, China and the EU are going to do about it. I say it is time for the rest of the world to carry their weight. I don't think LA is holding his breath. Check it out.

New mascot for Dems?

In the event the Democrats are tired of being jackasses, here is a suggestion for a new mascot. I call them Jelly Pigs. Scientists in Taiwan have bred pigs that glow in the dark in a flourescent green color. They create this by adding genetic material from jellyfish to the pig's embryo. Apparently, the pigs are green all the way through; even their organs.

I thought the jelly pigs would apply to Democrats. As it takes no imagination, I will leave the most obvious similarity to the reader. The jellyfish component can show the "spineless" nature of the Democrats. While the GOP has been spending way too much money, this does not mean the Dems have abstained from "pork". The Dems are "green" with envy over the power the GOP has been able to take from them. Finally, if they do not realize they have a fanatically extreme left wing that has taken over their party, we will keep saying "sow long" to more of them at each election.

No major blogging tonight as it is Chip's birthday

Tonight we celebrated my youngest son's 16th birthday. This is the one that runs Chip of Logic blog. Yes, the one that only has a couple of posts and fizzled out for the time being. Chip tells me he will hopefully soon start posting again. Anyway, we celebrated his birthday at Benihana's tonight and had a great time. It is now too late to accomplish much. Happy Birthday Chip!

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

ACLU opposition to Alito a bonus

Lefty blog Ostroy Report is reporting that Alito is only the 3rd SCOTUS nominee to be openly opposed by the ACLU. I was curious who the other two horrible nominees were? Apparently, they were Robert Bork and the late William Renquist. With company like that by an organization founded by a communist; an organization more interested in the rights of pedophiles and terrorists than the safety of Americans what better "endorsement" can you get. Alito must be fantastic. Here is the ACLU's official objection. And here is a fantastic website that can show why the ACLU's opposition is a plus.

Media treatment of non-christian religion different

While I read this article (yes, AP) about Muslims trashing a liquor store because of their religious beliefs against liquor, I was amazed at how the story was handled. I have seen stories of Christians that break the law to heavy-handedly force their beliefs on others and they (rightfully so) were cast in quite a bad light. Yet in this story I am hard pressed to find 1 single solitary facet that casts aspersion on the vandals. The one sentence that describes their actions has the word "terrifying" in it. If left by itself one might expect a pro-Muslim group of calling them terrorists, here but the sentence ends in a mitigating almost promotion of the criminals by adding "...but stealing nothing".
In fact the rest of the story works very hard to promote this group and render an apology for their actions. Other quotes from the story:
"They weren't your ordinary thugs. Dressed in bow ties and dark suits..."
"The[sic] just wanted to leave a message: Stop selling alcohol to fellow Muslims."
"But she also said the vandalism has prompted discussions throughout the black community."
If the story is not promoting the vandals, it goes on to describe both sides so they can be understood. The media never seems to be interested in "understanding" Christians. Distorting, yes, but not understanding. As you read this, you almost feel the underlying tone of "I am really sorry I have to report a crime by Muslims, but I understand you and will help others to understand you."

Liberal media has limited vocabulary for GOP

It seems the vast majority of news stories that cover President Bush educating the public on the success of his policies cannot find another verb besides "touts". Bush touts education. Bush touts economy. Bush touts this, that and the other things. How about "promotes", "points to" or "publicizes". I am sure there are a few stories that don't keep using the same words over and over, but "touts" seems to really take the crown. It is the same with Tom Delay. The media seems to only be able to use the word "embattled" at the head of every Tom Delay story. The overuse of these words is quite tiresome and boring. I guess the media just wants to continue being "stuck on stupid".

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Merkel has a funny way of reaching out

When Merkel booted out Schroeder in the recent election I thought it might be a step in the right direction. When there was talk of focusing on improving relations between Germany and the US, I thought this was a confirmation things were going in the right direction. Today we see that they might as well have kept Schroeder in. In the Reuters story I have linked to:
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in an interview published days before her first visit to the United States, said Washington should close its Guantanamo Bay prison camp and find other ways of dealing with terror suspects."
I think several things when I read that. First, why do foreign governments think they have to denounce our policies before visiting us. Next time you visit Aunt Petunia, write an open letter to her and the rest of your family criticizing Aunt Petunia's decorations and the condition of her home. I am sure she will then welcome you with open arms. For all thy hype about Europeans being more civilized than the US, they could sure use some lessons in etiquette.

Second, her predecessor has already sent quite a lot of US criticism our way. If Merkel intends to improve relations between us, perhaps it is time to use a new tactic.

Finally, while I had hoped she was more conservative; it appears she is yet another lib. Only a lib would make such a fool of herself as to spew out such criticism with no ideas of replacement to address her concern. She denounces Guantanamo and says we need to deal with terror suspects in "other ways". What ways might that be madame? Oh, you don't have any ideas, just criticism. When a leader stands up against criticism and says we are handling the situation in the best way we know and explains why in great detail, don't make a fool of yourself and stand up and say it is wrong without an alternate solution. You simply come across as pandering to the elite.

My suggestion to Ms. Merkel is that Germany has quite a number of problems of its own that need attention. Perhaps she should forego her critical trip here in order to focus on her own problems.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Delay abandons leadership hopes

It was my intent to write a post with my opinion that Delay should walk away from hopes of getting back his majority leader position. This morning AP reports that he has done just that, with the GOP likely to push him out if he had not gone voluntarily. While Democrats will trumpet this as an admission of guilt of sorts, it cannot be denied that for now the Democrats have scored a victory. By walking away, Delay reduces damage and pockets the opportunity to reverse this against them.

I have been accused of hypocrisy where it comes to Tom Delay and other GOP "corruption". The fact is that so far, prosecutor Ronnie Earle has made no public case against Delay with any smoking gun evidence. Liberals blogs have merely taken three facts to form a conclusion of guilt: he was indicted, he is GOP and he breathes. No matter the indictment process was appeared the equivalent of a blind man stumbling through an obstacle course, the other two factors are enough for them. It is possible Delay is guilty, but according to evidence it is just as possible that this is a partisan witch-hunt.

Even if innocent, the Democrats combined with help from the media and the GOP house rules have scored them a strong hit for now. Without the fast vindication of an aquittal or the case being thrown out fully, Delay and the GOP can only lose points by forcing the issue at this time. If Delay is found guilty of this or any other crime, he deserves punishment which I am all for. If Delay is later vindicated in court, today's action of walking away from this will be strong capital to decry both the Democrats and the media. A vindication will be twice as effective now than if he had demanded his rights and made a political 'scene'.

Drudge exposes Alito hit plot and Dems drop witness

Yesterday and continuing today Drudge reports of the Dems plot to attack Supreme Court nominee Alito. Basically, Alito in college had joined a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) "as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus". Though the Drudge report is not clear of the timing between Alito's membership and writings in the groups paper, there are apparently some writing that exist that have racial and sexist overtones. Alito had no part in these writings, but since facts do not matter to liberals, Drudge reports they plan to apply these statements to Alito by association. Drudge reports:
' One Democrat Hill staffer involved in their strategy declared, “Put a fork in Scalito. It doesn’t matter that Alito didn’t write it, it doesn’t matter that Alito wasn’t that active in the group, Foote wrote it in CAP’s magazine and we are going to make Alito own it.” '
"It doesn't matter that Alito didn't write it...we are going to make Alito own it." Sounds like some school boy fighting over marbles on the playground to me. Drudge further shows that they planned to call Stephen Dujack, a freelance journalist and longtime critic of CAP to testify at Alito's hearings. Drudge shows that Dujack is not free from baggage, nor objective stating:
"Dujack penned an op-ed in 2003 that compared farm animals to Holocaust victims and gave money to the Kerry presidential campaign."
Drudge has further details I will not show here, but basically we can lump this in with other known facts surrounding the Dems and the Alito nomination to see that the Dems have no legitamate issue with Alito other than they want an activist liberal on the bench instead of a conservative constitutionalist. Recent reports show a plan to delay voting on Alito by one week, but that they were not planning to filibuster him. Merely stating this does not mean they aren't, of course. In all likelihood, this extra week gives radical opposition groups more time to play hit adds using funds they have gathered for just this purpose. They also are hoping that some heated moments may arise that they can latch onto as an excuse to twist the arms of the Dem 7 of the "gang of 14" to join a filibuster.

Now the day after Drudge's report FOX News is reporting that the Dems have dropped this Dujack from their witness list. The Fox report states:
"Dujack confirmed to late Friday that he was no longer testifying, but said he could not elaborate."
No reason has been obtained for his removal despite attempts to contact the offices of Kennedy and Leahy. I would guess that either Dujack caved under the first piece put out about him by Drudge, or that the Dems saw that such a radical as Dujack would end up helping Alito and making them look bad. After all bringing a witness to make Alito guilty by association, would end up making the Dems guilty by association for bringing Dujack to testify. Amazing how things work when rules are applied equally to all.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Template changes

There are a few minor changes I am trying to make to my blog template. Until I get this right it may look a little funny from time to time. I have very much enjoyed this template, but I just want a couple of things different and the template doesn't like what I want to do. :(

Appeasement in the courtroom

Largebill Pontificates blog points to a story where a man was raping a girl repeatedly over time from age 7 to 10. In Vermont, the home of Howard Dean and Sen. Leahy,Judge Edward Cashman had the opportunity to put this sicko behind bars for at least 8 years. Yet in a move that drips with the same mentality as liberal appeasement toward hostile dictators, the judge gave only 2 months claiming "he no longer believes that punishment works". According to the report:
"But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation."

' "I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value;it doesn't make anything better;it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger,"Cashman explained to the people in the court. '
On the contrary, judge, the jail sentence works every time it is tried. The sentence is not given to rehabilitate, but to punish and keep criminals off the street to keep society safe. I have never heard of a little girl being raped by a man while he is in prison. I am for the death penalty or mandatory life sentence for any pervert that sexually assaults a child. No opportunity for a repeat offense, period. No expectation of rehabilitation, just get them away from our kids forever.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

How would the media and world react to Sharon's death?

The media and the world went ga gaa over terrorist father Arafat as he was dying and after his death. If Ariel Sharon dies from his recent stroke, will he be treated as well or even half as well? Look for an overemphasis of claims of misdeeds during his war years. My prediction is that you will hear the word "atone" quite a bit. The only thing good a liberal media will see in Sharon is the land givebacks. Even, then they must spin it negatively; hence they will question whether this "atones" for any misdeeds of his youth. They may even use the word "atrocity". While Arafat went out a media and world "darling", look for last words on Sharon to be reluctantly put out and to quickly move on.

Kiwis pioneer citizenship limitations

The Galvin Opinion posts on New Zealand voting to end citizen rights by birth. As in the US, any baby that was born in NZ automatically had the right to become a citizen. The new law requires that at least one parent be a citizen. Lately there have been stirrings in the US of passing similar legislation. Current law allows the system to be used to give birth to a citizen, which automatically yields a "foot in the door" for the parents who are not yet citizens.

Galvin also wonders if not passed by US Congress, '...will liberal justices like Breyer and Ginsburg cite New Zealand's "good" foreign law? '

Excellent question! This is a great slapdown to the liberals who think activist judges citing foreign laws they agree with is just fine and dandy. How will they react to a foreign law they would despise?

AP sucks people in again with incorrect information

What an absolute tragedy that these families were given such a false hope. According to Editor & Publisher, it was AP that originally broke the story:
' An Associated Press dispatch first carried the news at 11:52 pm: "Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, more than 41 hours after the blast, family members said. Bells at a church where relatives had been gathering rang out as family members ran out screaming in jubilation." But many newspapers, and all of cable TV news, reported the rescue as fact, not merely based on family claims.

A later AP account by Allen Breed grew more, not less, certain: "Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, sending family members streaming from the church where they had gathered during the nearly two-day ordeal. Joyous shouts rose of 'Praise the Lord!'" '
I have had my issues with AP in politics, but this is one where people really got hurt from the shabby reporting methods that seem to hound this news service. I hope this incident causes a well needed shake up in their organization.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Backspin blog unveils AP terrorist empathy

Media Backspin Blog points out the AP's true colors where it comes to terrorists. Showing a picture of the mother of three suicide bombers, AP decides to use the label "martyr" to describe her murderous sons. The description beside the photo states:
"Um Nidal, mother of three Palestinian martyrs delivering a speech at a celebration at the 18th foundation anniversary of Palestinian militant group, Hamas, on Friday Dec. 30, 2005, in the Syrian capital, Damascus. Hamas organized a celebration at Yarmouk refugee camp southern Damascus with participation of 2000 Palestinians. (AP Photo / Bassem Tellawi)"
If no apology is forthcoming, all doubt of AP's allegiance will have been removed.

Spielberg puts appeasement above truth in Munich

I have wanted to post on the Spielber movie "Munich" for a few days and am glad I waited because my folks have sent me a commentary on the movie from the local newspaper the Daily Herald. The premise is that the movie is based on a fake version of events. The author Chaya Gil begins with a description that the movie:
"... is supposedly based on what happened after 11 Israeli athletes were slaughtered by Palestinian terrorists in September 1972, in the Olympic Village in Munich."
Spielberg has an opportunity to give a movie with an anti-terrorist theme, but instead he sells out his own people and his own soul to produce an alternate reality. Gil states:
"The movie doesn’t provide the context necessary to understand why Israel went after the terrorists responsible for the massacre of the innocent athletes. Nor does it point out that after the athletes were taken hostage, the German government refused to allow the Israeli security forces to help in saving them. Nor does it mention that several weeks after Germany botched the rescue, the German government released the four captured terrorists in exchange for a Lufthansa airplane hijacked by Palestinians."
With leaving out such critical information, can we next expect Spielberg to launch a joint effort with the new Iranian president showing Germany during WWII with the holocaust suspiciously absent? Spielberg shows his appeasement mentality as the ' movie suggests that Israel’s effort to avenge the athletes, contributed to an endless “cycle of violence.” ' We have seen how far recent Israeli restraint has succeeded. It is met with yet other attacks. As land is foolishly yielded, the same land is used to launch further attacks.

Munich displays a complete lack of understanding of a mentality that does not want peace, but wants the destruction of the Jewish people. The movie's treatment of the terrorists that slaughtered the atheletes is disgusting. As Gil states:
"The movie spends a lot of time humanizing the terrorists — they are shown with their families. From the beginning, you don’t see any difference between those who killed innocent athletes, and the Israeli agents who go after them."
As the movie blunts the savagery of the terrorists, it also denies the great positives that came of the Israeli agent's actions. Gil describes the long-term benefit:
"The truth is that Israel eventually closed down the terrorist network in Europe. Not only did they get most of those involved directly and indirectly with the Munich massacre, but Israel nipped the entire network of Palestinian terror in Europe. Because of that, countless lives were saved."
In fact all of the pretzel-like efforts Spielberg went through to neutralize good and evil were not appreciated by the palastinian Munich mastermind as told in this Reuters article. The misguided thinking of Spielberg is on display in the article:
' The Hollywood director has called "Munich", which dramatizes the 1972 raid and Israel's reprisals against members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), his "prayer for peace". '
So in his mind, if we can only understand and reach out to terrorists, they will become human like Cinderella's stage coach turning back into a pumpkin. The reached out hand was bitten by the mastermind:
' Mohammed Daoud planned the Munich attack on behalf of PLO splinter group Black September, but did not take part and does not feature in the film.

He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to the Jewish state.

"If he really wanted to make it a prayer for peace he should have listened to both sides of the story and reflected reality, rather than serving the Zionist side alone," Daoud told Reuters by telephone from the Syrian capital, Damascus. '

I guess he thinks Spielberg should have made the terrorists heroes. Daoud denies targeting civilians by rationalizing that "... any Israeli is a soldier." It is amazing that Spielberg puts so little value in historical accuracy. He is willing to exchange truth for this misguided "prayer for peace" that has been met with ingratitude. It just shows that when you try to please everybody, often everybody gets mad at you.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Logic Lifeline takes one for the team

I took one for the team today. I have resisted registering on the NY Times website for a long time. My dislike of the Times was not helped by their registration requirement. Salt in the wound. However, since I anticipate some points of interest they will be spewing out this year I figured I had better bite the bullet. I expect more of the same or worse instead of what we should see: an apology for placing US citizens in danger by revealing national security secrets. I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, every time I need to log in, I'll try to think of my friends reading here and maybe it won't be so bad.

2006 Predictions by the Anchoress blog

Since I have posted some predictions, I have been interested when I see predictions of others. The Anchoress blog is one I look at from time to time. She has posted quite a number of predictions that while seeming to be humorous, have a strong element of truth to them. There are 21 in all that you can read by clicking on my title link. I will give a few to spark your interest:
"4) The WaPo will pull back from that story. The NY Times, mad with hate, will run over a cliff with it. The L.A. Times will save itself.

7) CBS will ignore my excellent suggestion and hire Katie Couric to read the CBS Evening News. Surprised by her high negatives and low ratings (after the initial curiosity bump) they will trail NBC news, but not ABC. Stagnation and mediocrity will follow. The expensive kind.

13) Rudy Giuliani and Jeb Bush will both say they’re not running for president in ‘08. One of them will be telling the truth. "
Please feel free to add any predictions you might have as I would be interested to read them. If you made any on your blog, please feel free to leave your link.

John Kerry still does not get it

There is an interesting news article in Newsmax about how John Kerry seems to be still in campaign mode; the theory being he has his eyes on 2008. John Kerry does not get it if he does not realize that he is a "has been" with little to zero chance of winning the nomination for '08. Even some liberals had to see what a dried out husk with no solid principles that he is. In defense of his actions:
' "He's continuing the fight he began in 2004," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "He wants to make it very clear he's a fighter who is going to continue to fight for his agenda." '
What agenda? Liberals continue to claim they have an agenda, yet I think you would be hard pressed in finding anyone that could (or would) articulate it. Somehow they think that stating "We are for adding jobs" is an agenda item. No, that is a wish; not an agenda. An agenda item would be something like "We plan to create an environment that will stimulate job growth by lowering taxes and reducing government mandates on businesses".

Patterico annual review of the LA Times 2005

The Patterico's Pontifications blog has a year end review of the LA Times. This is my first look at this blog which focuses on said paper on a regular basis. I love the newspaper photo at the top of the LA Times with the front page headline "PATTERICO Public Enemy #1". So having this context, the annual review is actually the third from this blog.

It is a very, very long post that covers a lot of material. I admit I skimmed it and focused on the parts that interested me. I would highly recommend at least doing that as you get in one sitting the full flavor of an irresponsibly bias newspaper that puts agenda way above truth and accuracy.

The "imminent threat" section is simply amazing, where the LA Times repeatly conveys that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat when he did no such thing. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union Address "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent..."; in other words he is clearly stating it is not yet imminent and that we should not wait until the threat is imminent. The LA Times repeated this "canard" and then stalled on correcting the story. They finally came out with a statement that it was "incorrectable". While this is the nutshell of that section, there is more detail and links that dissect the entire event to clearly show a bias newspaper shamefully in action.

There are many more topics of discussion in the post relating to 2005 events and how the Times handled them. Hugh Hewitt also has a post on this and makes interesting comments on how the LA Times can correct the problem and how newspapers blame the no call list on the decline in their circulation. Kudos to Patterico for a thorough piece that I am sure took a lot of time and effort to put together.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Happy New Year 2006 to all

2005 was a very interesting year in the world and the US. Other blogs have hashed out the significant events of the year. One of the best is the National Review Online's lists the best and worst of politics 2005.

I predict that 2006 will be one of the most politically interesting years in my lifetime. In the following I have prepared a list of those I predict to be losers and winners. These are not in the same category of the 'pscychic' predictions we always see in the tabloids. They are based on what I currently know or believe to be true and my political instincts. Missing a major piece of the puzzle could throw the whole thing off. In a media environment where papers sit on stories for over a year, who knows what puzzle pieces are currently missing.

- The Mainstream Media (MSM) will be a monumental loser in 2006. If the MSM has not already gone over the cliff they are very much on the edge. While their ultimate demise is not imminent, their fall into irrelevancy is almost at the tipping point. The New York Times will be lucky to escape 2006 without the brands of "traitor" and "enemy" irrevocably tattooed on their forehead. The Washington Post will be suffering a CBS stonewalling moment regarding the Bill Roggio hit piece making unfounded statements and refusing to respond to probing questions. The LA Times goes into 2006 stinging from reporting a known joke as real news, then giving a microscopic apology and retraction. I have pointed out on an ongoing basis the lack of credibility in the Associated Press. So far the world is at the mercy of only liberal news wire services. I predict some focus on this issue to hitch a ride with the general downward slide of the MSM in
general. If CBS thinks Katie Couric will solve their news anchor woes, they will quickly learn what an intellectual lightweight she is if they succeed in bringing her on board. CNN will continue to slide in total viewership while continuing to beat their chest about demographic gains. It must be hard to make such a big deal out of demographic gains after firing Aaron Brown, their demographic #2. The two hours of Anderson Cooper will really bite them now or
later. If they switch now so soon after Brown, they will look chaotic and desperate. If they wait, Cooper's second hour will be slaughtered. With a high profile election year on the horizon, we will see higher cable news viewers overall. However, I predict a shift in the second and third slots later in the year between CNN and MSNBC.

- The United Nations will be a huge loser in 2006. As we have seen in the past, the MSM is very reluctant to report stories contrary to their agenda until they are shamed into reporting on them (the Monica Lewinsky story and the Oil-For Food scandal are the two most famous). The MSM is now completely reluctant to report on the mismanagement of the tsunami aid money, but as time goes by they will be shamed into doing so. This scandal and continued probes into Kojo's Mercedes Benz will not be deflected by Kofi Annan accusing reporters of acting like schoolboys. While some are predicting this will be the ultimate blow for Annan and that he will resign, I predict he will stick out his final year. Kofi has never been a class act. Why should he start now? Also, the 'corruption as a way' of life governments of China, Russia, Germany and France will not likely lift a finger to demand action. By years end the American people will be demanding to know just what the purpose of the UN is and how is the money we spend on it worth it.

- The Democrats will be huge losers in 2006. This loss may or may not be apparent at the ballot box in November. They will likely have one big victory against Rick Santorum. But at what cost? As the year goes on, Santorum's numbers will rise. This will cause a panic in the Democrats because at the moment, his demise looks like a 'gimme'. A Santorum victory would be devastating and they can't let that happen. Look for many dollars and other resources to focus so much on Pennsylvania at the expense of other races. Regardless of the elections, the Democrats reputation will be severely wounded. Just a few more missteps and the Democrat's weakness on national security will change from axiomatic to written in stone. The incestuous relationship between the MSM and Democrats will be a millstone around the Democrat's neck this year as we see the MSM on the ropes. More and more Americans are connecting the dots between those two. They will come to the conclusion that neither has our best interest in mind.

- The Marxist, anti-US entrenchment in our colleges and universities will remain intact this year, but we will see a few minor steps of progress in laying the foundation for their ultimate extraction. So far their strength has been flying under the radar. As the blogosphere and talk radio continue to draw attention to this plague on society and students continue to expose them it will have the effect of shaking a bees nest. As with Ward Churchill they will come out to talk about free speech along with their crazy ideas and advance the ultimate exposure.

- Hollywood will be a big loser in 2006. Their loss will occur on two fronts. First, in the area of politics and actors/actresses. If they realize they made a big mistake in 2004 by being too politically active without the intellectual foundation to support their activist stance, staying away from the political arena will be an admission of their impotence where it comes to political influence. If they do not recognize this and continue their activities, the carnage on their reputations will continue. The second area is in the box office. Hollywood is in a constant battle
between producing what they want to produce and what people want them to produce. Agenda vs. profit. With 'big' stars lately getting involved in box office bombs, coupled with no name casts having unexpected success the concept of a box office draw by actors and actresses may be fading. This is a huge loss for the big stars that may lead to a huge gain for the consuming public. More frequent use of no names, linked with quality themes and story lines would lead to lower budgets with higher viewership. Somehow this will be viewed as censorship by the elites.

- The power of the tax cut will be a big winner in 2006. It has already proven itself by mitigating the assaults on our economy by 9/11, the corporate scandals of Enron and others, biological threats such as SARS and West Nile, high energy prices. Not to mention the recession Bush inherited as he took office. 2004 showed how the tax cuts protected our economy from assault. 2005 showed how the tax cuts stimulated the economy for growth. 2006 will show how the tax cuts laid a foundation for even greater economic strength. In spite of economic gloom and doom predictions, we will see 2006 as a year of economic strength. There are reports of large scale hiring plans and expectations of rising wages. I predict the most under-reported story of 2006 will be the shrinking deficit. As more are hired and wages increase, so will the tax revenues that always go up in the years following an across the board tax cut. If spending can be at least held in check, we will see a significant shrinkage in the deficit. Big if.

- 2006 will be a year of vindication for George Bush. We will see significant strides in Iraq and a drawdown of troops; not because of a cut and run strategy, but because Iraqis will be more and more ready to take the lead in the military and police efforts. An execution of Saddam Hussein will be a powerful statement if it can be pulled off this year. There will continue to be more advances in freedom and voting in other Middle East countries as well as the contagiousness of democracy takes root. Our presence close to Iran during further irrational actions by their hostage taking leader will be viewed as prophetic. Bush will continue to speak out in defense of the policies and decisions he has made. During his near silence, the rantings of the MSM seemed to make sense to the under-informed. By simply speaking about the issues, the deception of the MSM falls very quickly. I also predict that at least one of the 3 major Al Qaeda leaders (Bin Laden, Zawahari, Zarqawi) will be captured, killed or confirmed dead this year.

- 2006 will be a banner year for the blogosphere. As the strength of the MSM wanes, the blogosphere will flex their muscles this year by continuing to call the MSM on their shortcomings. As with all elitists, the MSM will continue to be blind to the actual strength and effectiveness of the blogoshere. The MSM cannot save itself by ignoring the new media. The MSM cannot save itself by merely admitting to the shortcomings exposed by the new media. The MSM can only save itself by correcting the shortcomings exposed by the new media. Since they will never do that, the MSM will descend while the new media rises.

- Fox News will have another blowout year. After the 2004 election news viewership took a hit. This has probably always been the case, but enhanced political interest in recent years has made it more pronounced. With this election cycle expected to be hotly contested around hot button items, viewership will be high. Fox News will shine in its fair and balanced coverage and I predict will have another blowout year. While I think MSNBC will kick CNN to the #3 slot
like Santa kicked the kid down the slide in "A Christmas Story", Fox News will stay on top. Their demographic will show dramatic improvement as the conservative 25-54 year olds currently busy with productivity and capitalistic endeavors will tune in for the election.

- Conservative Talk Radio will have surprising growth in 2006 - The elections will also help conservative talk radio. However, as the MSM continues to carry water for the radical and ridiculous side of the liberal wing, frustration among conservatives will push talk radio listenership to new heights and will enjoy success in unimaginable markets. The treason of revealing national security secrets simply to attack a sitting president in wartime will be the tipping point for some normally on the fence; the fence being both viewpoint and level of political interest. While radical leftists will continue their current trends, Reagan Democrats and moderates will have a fire lit under them.

- The stock market will rise sharply in 2006 - (disclaimer: I am not a financial expert. This is only my opinion. Please do not base financial investment decisions based on the writings of a blogger who writes under an alias with a picture of Popeye) That said, in my opinion the stock market is currently undervalued having been suppressed by high energy prices and lower consumer confidence based on the false notion put out by the MSM that we have a weak economy. That bubble having been burst by the year end retail sales coupled with declining fuel prices and strong hiring trends will cause a rise in the market. The housing market will take a brief breather over the next few months and return strongly in the spring. Of course the MSM will picture this as the housing bubble finally bursting, then act surprised when housing strength returns. We have been hovering at the 11,000 DOW mark for 5 years now. First, this shows that in the latter years of Clinton the market was greatly overvalued. Second, with the GDP growth we have experienced while the market hovers in the same spot tells me it is now undervalued. By third quarter they may be wondering if we will break 12,000.

- Psychiatrists and therapists will be big winners in 2006 - While Democrats dream of big gains in Congress this year, there is really very little chance of a big gain. A couple of months back, the left was blogging that these elections were going to be like picking ripe fruit and they did not even need a plan or agenda in order to win big. I am seeing them back-pedal away from that now. They are starting to talk about the congressional districts and voter fraud, etc. Some are starting to come up with an agenda to push for - kindof like Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America'. We can only pray they try a stunt like that; where they do best at concealing their agenda. The GOP does not even need to make gains to make the shrinks winners. Simply keeping the status quo will send them over the edge for another two years.

- The Logic Lifeline 2006 - I both hope and predict the Logic Lifeline will grow in 2006. I have two primary goals for this year: 10000 hits and one honorable mention by one of the bigger blogs such as,, Why would they do that? I don't know but it would be very cool.

I have not made any predictions for GOP or conservative losses. It is likely that in some of the outstanding areas the Dems may get a little lucky in one or two things going their way. I think Tom Delay will be acquitted of all charges against him, but who knows? Since no evidence has been released one can't tell what they might be sitting on. If Delay gets his speedy trial, my guess is that Earle will claim he can't get his case ready after years of investigation. The GOP could get bitten on immigration, but since the Dems have not taken any interest in capitalizing on it, who knows? Any successful terrorist attack will be pushed as a Bush failure by the MSM. It is hard to imagine them getting away with that as they have tried at every turn to handcuff anti-terrorist efforts. On the other hand, if an attack can clearly be shown that the handcuffing caused prevention, the Dems are toast. In short, I'll let the left side of the blogosphere make the anti-conservative dire predictions.

Again, Happy New Year to all from the Logic Lifeline.