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

Monday, March 26, 2007

Guerilla Blog Tactics

My Dear Wormwood,

So you have taken to guerilla tactics on conservative blogs? Good, this has proven to be a very effective tool in the propaganda war. However, it must be done strategically for the best results. You must take great care or the propaganda cause will be harmed. The goal is to discredit as many conservative bloggers as you can in the eyes of as many as you can. This means you must not have a blog of your own. There must not be a centralized source of your statements to compare against your attacks. It provides too much ammunition to your subject.

- When attacking with comments, remember that your subject likes to debate you in a very tight space: one item at a time with clearly laid out supporting facts and quotes. If you fight on these terms, you will find yourself in trouble very quickly.

- Never directly address the points he posts about. Take the narrow idea being addressed and immediately broaden it into several points scattered in several directions. When he responds, keep adding more scattered points. At first he will attempt to answer several of these dispersed targets. When he begins to catch on, he will try very hard to narrow down the scope of the debate. Fight him as long as you can. Remember, this is guerilla warfare and your goal is to wear him down.

There are several ways to do this.

- The Rabbit Trail: Go off on rabbit trails (such as Israel, the impending doom of the US economy or world opinion)instead of arguing any points in the post you are attacking.

- Bloviation: Never argue on points with brevity or clarity. Once you begin this you are doomed. Conservative points always win in the black and white arena. Instead make outrageous unsupported claims as if everyone but your subject knows they are true. Paint your subject as in denial over the truth.

- Name Calling: For best results, use name calling in a way that you can deny what you are doing. When your subject lists the names you are calling him, simply state that they are descriptions of his points, not name calling. Some names to try might be racist, pathetic, dishonest, nationalist and others.

If your subject succeeds in getting the scope of the debate back down to a managable set, there are new tactics to try.

- Refuse to support your claims by claiming your subject does not want an honest debate.

- Next give your subject links instead of succinct supporting quotes. He will click around and around and waste a lot of time trying to figure out what you are countering his points with. When your subject objects, tell him it is all there and take the opportunity to question his reading ability.

- When links no longer work, dump the "mountain" on him. Take reams of long quotes from the links you gave him. Make sure they do not clearly address his points, but only add to frustration. When your subject again objects, accuse him of moving the goal posts.

Whether your subject succeeds in pinning you down to a point where you must respond correctly or not, it is now time to move on. End the interchange with more name calling and accusations against his intelligence and tactics. Make a huge grandstanding exit that it is not worth writing any more against somebody so stupid or so bias.

May we soon see your efforts begin to bear fruit by swaying the masses to our side.

Your affectionate Uncle,

Labels: ,

Boortz Has Some on the Left Pegged

An interesting quote in Nealz Nuze today:
Liberals love to paint conservatives as being ignorant, stupid, obtuse, mindless, irrational and, on occasion, retarded. For the most part leftists use this "stupid" tactic in order to avoid actually having to intellectually engage with someone who thinks differently than they. After all ... you really don't have to consider the opinions offered by someone who disagrees with you if you can successfully and falsely brand them as ignorant.
I think he has been reading some comments here and other blogs I frequent. Hmmm.

Labels: ,

Friday, March 23, 2007

Vote Buying Scandal Rocks Dems

A Washington Post editorial is rightly scolding Democrat House Leadership for a scandalous $20 Billion in spending bribes to buy the votes of Congressmen to add a drop dead timetable for withdraw in Iraq. According to the editorial:

TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

This action is egregious in multiple ways. First, the Dems are showing loudly and clearly that their criticism of GOP spending was a sham. They did not care about the taxpayer or the deficit while they were grandstanding in front of the media. Their rants against GOP spending were chokingly hypocritical. Liberals will always stand behind what they claim will be the "greater good" in order to do their dirty work. The informed knew that spending under the Dems would be as bad or worst.

Second, the Dem leadership is stealing from the taxpayers in order to bribe some of their fellow members into voting the way they want. What ever happened to the most ethical congress? What is the difference between this bribe and the $100,000 freezer bribe given to William Jefferson? Or the bribes given to Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney? Or the bribes given to a campaigning Hillary Clinton in exchange for pardons by her president husband? Nothing is different! They are all bribes in exchange for political favors. Is their argument so weak and the public support for their views so weak that they need to bribe their members. The editorial states the "The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq." While I may disagree, if they think they have a mandate, why does it take bribes to get their votes? How many times did we hear from the media about Tom "the Hammer" Delay whipping the votes. What is this: whipping-bad, bribes-good? These bribes are scandalously representative of those providing them AND those willing to receive them to change their votes.

Third, the Dems continue to play games with our national security. As the quote above states, the firm timetable does not care what is going on at the time the deadline hits. It does not care who's life is in danger or any other related circumstances. The Constitution gave such responsibilities to a Commander in Chief, not to an unthinking piece of paper. The Dems continue to put their agenda above the safety of our troops and our people. You would think that having such a tarnished image in this area that they would be doing something to correct it. I guess repayment to their radical leftist puppetmasters comes before national security or their image.

Fourth, the fact that none of these actions target any timeline for a withdrawal from Afganistan shows how disingenuous the Dems are. They paint a picture that we are also doing poorly in Afganistan. This whole "mandate" claim is that the people do not feel the war on terror is going well. How is Afganistan any different? The kook left claims that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq AND that he is actually behind the 9/11 attacks. So why does one war front get a pass? Political games, that's why.

I am sure if I put some more thought into this I could find other reasons why this scandal is such a terrible thing. I wonder how much play it will get in the media? It seems only GOP scandals are worthy of day after day coverage. At most Dem scandals get a mention and then onto something else. The army of the uninformed and misinformed marches on.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Will a Weakened West Ever Fall to Sharia?

I was recently asked by a commenter:

"How will this very small number of fanatics put fundamentalist sharia in place without overwhelming force?"

While there are many examples, a recent story out of Germany shows how eager leftists are to bow the knee to radical Islamic law and place it above the established laws of their own country. According to a story from AFP:
A German woman judge has refused a Moroccan-born woman permission to file for divorce by interpreting the Koran as allowing husbands to beat their wives.

The woman had filed for immediate divorce on the grounds that the husband, also of Moroccan origin, regularly beat her and threatened to kill her. The claims were backed up by a police report.

But the female judge, who has not been named, made clear in a letter that the wife's bid had little chance of approval because, according to her, Islamic law allowed a man to strike his wife.

To be fair all political parties and a Muslim council denounced the decision. Good for them. However, since this is a radical decision that provides a "back hand" to Islam while appearing to support it I am not surprised that many distanced themselves from it. However, there have been other less radical steps deferring to Islamic law in the UK, the US and other countries. Whether or not this judge was a liberal, there are many liberal judges that time after time make rulings that break from the laws of the country. In order to form the rule of law into their way of thinking, they make rulings accordingly. Little by little they will sell Europe and the US out to Sharia.

Leftists also continue their attempts to weaken the West against radical Islam by their outrageous sympathizing of the monstrous acts of those who target and kill innocent men, woman and children while demonizing interrogation tactics of the US that make the subject a little uncomfortable. While the premise that radical Islam does not yet have overwhelming force is true, when the left is finished rotting the West from within they will not need overwhelming force to take us over. At just the right point in their propaganda war, they will push over a single domino with one finger and the rest will fall in sequence. Whether they are purposeful enemies or useful idiots, the result will be the same.

Labels: , , , , ,

Primary Political Terrain Shifting

I have always thought that the way our election primaries are conducted is wrong. I can't quite put my finger on it, but to give Iowa and New Hamshire first crack at deciding who our next president might be seems odd. The fact that people are such lemmings and are influenced to vote the same as previous states is quite frustrating. States have been shifting their primary dates around to gain more influence in the decision. California recently shifted their date early and now Florida is considering moving their primary up to January 29th! You can read about it in the Sun-Sentinel here. Personally I would like to have ALL of the primaries on one day. While I am giving my preferences I really wish that prior to that day the media would restrain itself from conducting polls. Now that would be a fun primary. It might even get more people involved. Of course, I am only interested in informed people voting as that would yield the best result. It would be great if more people became informed and more informed people voted.

Fired For Free Speech?

Somehow the author of the recent You-Tube video that portrays Hillary in a bad light (is there any other way to portray her?) has been found and fired from his job. He works for a company that is a vendor for the Obama campaign. ABC News reports:
The presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was rocked by revelations Wednesday night that one of its contracted employees was the creator of a scathing YouTube video against his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., despite Obama's insistance that he had nothing to do with it.
I am no fan of Obama. He is one of the two lefty senators in my home state. Reading this ABC News story I was struck by two points. They seem to be in Hillary's camp and they seem to so casually treat the free speech rights of the video author. I realize that papers tend toward the sensational, but this tendency to make dirt stick to somebody whether it belongs or not is ridiculous. Providing no evidence whatsoever that Obama or his campaign authorized the video the story uses inflammatory verbiage such as the Obama campaign was "rocked by revelations". They later state that "The admission threatened to besmirch Obama's pledge to run a clean campaign...". Later they have the statement that this employee did the work on his own time and it was his own idea. The work was neither requested nor paid for by the Obama campaign. Yet the story goes into great detail of how Obama's campaign had denied any involvement with the video. It is amazing how curious and probing ABC is here. Usually you do not see such an attitude toward a Democrat. The fact that this Democrat is in the race against another Democrat leaves no alternative but to think this story was written as it was to help Hillary.

What strikes me is that no player in this story seems the least concerned about the firing of the author. Here is a description of how he was caught:
Phil de Vellis, until Wednesday an employee of the company that handles Obama's Web site, boasted in a posting on the Huffington Post that he made the ad, though he claimed neither the Obama campaign nor his former employer, Blue State Digital — which does software development and hosting for Obama's campaign — was aware that he had.
Sometimes it is downright infuriating how key elements of a story are simply left out by the media. Why should I after reading news stories have simple questions that could have so easily been answered? I have not seen the Huffington post, but it seems odd to me that he would not sign his name anonymously, even if he was bragging about it. If he posted with an alias, how was he discovered? It is not that I think it too hard to do, the story leaves out details of the trail between the post and de Vellis.

Even if he posted his name clearly as the author and there are policies at Blue State Digital that can be used to justify his termination legally, nobody seems to be concerned that somebody has been fired for expressing his personal opinion on his own time. If he directly stated in his bragging post that he worked for BSD (hmmm, close to BDS) that may be one thing. However, ABC did not include any info from the post. If somebody is writing controversial things on their own time and being careful not to mention or refer to their employer, this should fall under the protection of free speech. If one is making every attempt to retain anononimity, yet is busted by some technical guru able to crack the privacy shield how can that be the fault of the individual? I don't think companies fall under the 1st Amendment protection and CAN fire somebody for what they say that might embarrass their image and harm their ability to conduct business. That does not mean that they MUST.

ABC News only gives us a peep-hole into the story, so there may be key elements missing. However, from the info I see ABC, BSD, the Obama campaign (including Obama himself) and Hillary have raised no issue that this man was fired for exercising his free speech. Of course liberals historically enthusiastically support free speech as their fist are pumping the air UNTIL that free speech is something they don't like. Then it is time to fire, silence, shout down, throw pies in the face, etc. Shame on the players in this drama for not even referring to the free speech element in this. They have more important things to worry about: their agendas.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Inhofe Sees Momentum Shift in Global Warming

In a recent long post on Global Warming I stated that each global warming post would begin with 5 critical questions:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

Cybercast News Service recently produced a column about how Senator Inhofe is seeing a shift in the momentum of the global warming debate favoring skeptics. The column states:
Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

Momentum is shifting away from scientific theories bolstering "anthropocentric" (human-centered) models of global warming and toward skeptics who do not see a link between human activity and rising temperatures, Inhofe told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
It goes on to state that the momentum shift is so significant that we are seeing a migration in the scientific community toward skepticism:
"Politicians who are using this to run for office are panicking because the scientists have totally reversed themselves on this issue," he asserted.

Inhofe provided a handout giving examples of what he called "scientific reversals."
Recent organized efforts bolstored by scientific facts show that at the very least the issue is far from settled. With such high visibility and new theories surfacing, can it be that many scientists are realizing that their legacy is on the line and will be recorded for people to reference for centuries. The consensus bandwagon is starting to look less appealing.

Senator Inhofe continues to be a point guard against the global warming alarmists. Today he got a crack at Al Gore when the former VP testified to Congress on the issue. Inhofe had an opening statement prepared to give to Al Gore that can be read here. Here are a few highlights with my emphasis:
It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.

First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus” linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree.

Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period.

He referred to the some supporters hinting that Gore may be harming his own cause with his alarmism. Inhofe points out that it is no wonder Gore has refused to debate those who have challenged him including the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus and Lord Monckton of Benchley. Inhofe gives his reason for Gore's fear of debate:

When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night.

That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing.

Pretty impressive for a tough liberal New York crowd. Gore wants to whistle past the graveyard with his claims that the issue is "beyond dispute". We need more debates and we need them made public. My five questions would be a good structure for the debate. I doubt they will, though.

Labels: , , , ,

Another Yawn For US Hating Leftists in a Field of Dandelions

Soon we will come to the glorious season of .... dandelions. Just one seed blown on the right winds falling onto an open space of dirt on an otherwise beautiful lawn and you have a dandelion weed. This weed grows and has a few yellow blooms that suddenly turn into more seeds. Soon as a result of one seed, there is a lawn of dendelions. All of this from one seed. In recent discussions in the comments section I am reminded how easily US hating leftists have taken a few small real seeds and by placing them in fertile soil in the media and watering them on leftist blogs have attempted to create a field of dandelions.

Some of these seeds are from the renegade actions of a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib. Leftists have tried to convert this disgusting and true crime and convert it into massive torture and mistreatment at Guantanamo. By taking the one seed of a true inhumanity and adding tons of media attention, giving credence to bandwagon detainees, creating illusion by repeatedly hyperventilating over lesser actions the leftists have without evidence succeeded in convincing many already primed and willing to think badly of the US that this country is evil. There is also the terrible story of the rape, murder, burning and burial of the Iraqi girl. Once again the perpetrators were brought to justice, yet this did not stop the leftist from painting a picture that this is the norm and that our soldiers are performing mass rape and murder throughout the countryside. No evidence, just a seed converted into a field of dandelions through massive, repetitive propaganda.

Then comes along story after story of the true monsters of this world. Recently yet another such story has surfaced showing yet another facet of the evil we see festering in the Middle East. The New York Post writes of a new tactic of the terrorist insurgents in Iraq with a story entitled "Cowards Using Baby Bombers". According to the story:
A U.S. general said yesterday that Iraqi terrorists used children in a suicide attack over the weekend, raising worries that the insurgency has adopted a monstrous new tactic to get through security checkpoints with bombs.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, said adults in a vehicle with two children in the back seat were allowed through a Baghdad checkpoint Sunday.

The adults then parked next to a market in the Adamiya area of Baghdad, abandoned the vehicle and detonated it with the children still inside, according to the general and another official.

Two innocents children placed in the back seat to lower the suspicion of the guards at the checkpoint. Who are these children? Were they kidnapped? Or did they belong to one or two of the insurgents? What story did they tell the mother of the kids? What story did they tell the kids? Did the kids think they were going to do something fun? Were they sitting in the back seat excited about some promised activity? While waiting did they play games in the back seat like our kids do? "I see something blue". License plate poker. Or were they tickling each other and laughing? What were they told when they were abandoned in the car that would become an execution chamber? "Just sit right there kids. Uncle Mohammed and his friends will be right back." Then they go back home and tell the mother she should be proud of her two "martyrs".

Whether it is killing kids in an exploding cars, by car bombs near children, by roadside bombs, by suicide bombers, by bombs in crowds or other means; these terrorists are child killers of the worst order. Though I feel and express great anger at this senseless and monstrous snuffing out of innocent life, I rarely see any sign of such anger among leftists. Instead they yawn in the face of such soul-less inhumanity. If they speak or write of it, it is in passing and without feeling. Then they move quickly to more bashing of the US and the Bush administration. They look past daily acts of horror to continue working on their field of dandelions.

The best weapon against dandelions in a lawn is to keep seeding the lawn with good grass seed so that all of the small patches of dirt that a seed might fall on no longer exist. Any seed will be choked and never reach the soil. This is what all good bloggers do.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Bush to Redeploy 4400 Troops - to Iraq

Look out for exploding heads in the liberal camp. While in the middle of their squabbling over the troop surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush has apparently decided they needed an extra scoop on their hot fudge sundae. He has approved 4400 new troops to be added to the already controversial surge number.

Many blogs including LASunsett over at PYY are posting the videos of the PR attacks by the anti-war crowd on one of their most loyal congressmen - David Obey - WI. Obey voted against the war and wants to do everything he can to end it. There is just one little problem - he is a realist and the anti-war crowd can never be accused of having two feet in reality. They ask him why he isn't doing this or that. One less than informed guy asks the congressman why he doesn't filibuster! Obey knows he does not have the votes to overcome any filibuster in the Senate or a veto by Bush. Twice he opens his jacket to ask if they see any magic wand in there.

The additional troops are telling me that Bush is trying to ride a wave of recent successes in Baghdad resulting from the troop surge. The shuffling of the lead positions in the Iraq war effort seems to have brought an improved recipe for now. If more success comes of it and we reach a tipping point where those opposed to the surge are forced to admit it was a good idea; we may see the war effort head into a new phase where everybody is behind victory. I realize many critics will think it is far too early for such talk and may never be willing to swallow such talk no matter how well things get.

There is a group of heavy hitting bloggers who do not think it is too early for victory talk. They have banded together and formed a new blog consortium called the Victory Caucus. I love their mission statement:
  • Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress

  • Provide tools and infrastructure to help citizens who are committed to victory organize into a recognized and influential caucus

  • Identify opportunities for the caucus to act and exert influence on America’s leaders and to directly aid and support the men and women of our military

See the "Our Beliefs" section here for a well written statement of the stands taken by the caucus. Some cannot grasp how damaging it would be to leave Iraq without it being stabilized. Regardless of whether one agrees with us going into Iraq, all must realize it would be damaging to how some very dangerous elements in the world view our committment in any future war effort. It would send a message that all that is necessary is huge anti-war propaganda effort to make us lose our will. Leaving Iraq too soon would also cause huge ill-will for the U.S. when thousands are slaughtered in the violence that would happen after our departure. Let's hope it does not come to that and that the new troops with a new plan will achieve victory.

Labels: , , , ,

Hugo Chavez Off to Rehab?

So does Hugo Chavez need to check himself into rehab after his insensitive name calling. In response to George Bush's Latin American visit, Chavez shouted to a crowd, "Gringo, go home!" Will there be such an angry stir in the American white community and a harsh response from the politically correct police that Chavez will be shamed into drastic measures? After all, the PC crowd is dominated by the Left and they currently worship him in all his thuggery: his limitations of free speech, his human rights violations of those who oppose him, his bid to obtain dictatorial powers and bypass any term limitations.

Of course I can now extract my tongue from my cheek with a crowbar. First of all, the PC crowd will not criticize their champion thug. They are too busy worshipping him, especially after calling Bush "the Devil" at the UN. Secondly, there are only certain groups the PC crowd deems worth protecting from insensitive speech. Whites, concervatives, Christians and men in general are among those groups where insensitive remarks are open season.

Of course, the main reason there will be no response against Chavez is that there is a group of people out there who in their youth heard the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" and believed it. I am one of those people. After the Ann Coulter broo-haha, I sat down and tried to think of some name that could be thrown at me that I would get offended at. A name that was derogatory of some group I happen to be a part of. Let's see. I am white and all terms such as gringo, whitey, and cracker don't really do much. I am a Christian and all terms such as fundie, Bible-thumper, Jesus freak and holy roller aren't worth cocking an eyebrow. Any words against the fact I am overweight are deserved by the choices I made getting this way. Words against my conservative stances such as fascist, capitalist pig and Repug are laughable. The gay community has begun calling heterosexuals "breeders". I think that is pretty darn funny. Do they actually think that is going to hurt our feelings?

The fact is that I am in a group that is very confident in what and who they are. Names simply do not have an effect on certain groups. I am proud of my heritage, faith, ideology and sexual orientation. I am not proud of my weight, but I am doing something about that. (aaargh! I am in the stage where you actually gain weight because you are adding muscle from the exercises. This too shall pass). I am not defending name calling or advocating a wholesale increase in name calling. I am calling for a wholesale increase in "get a life" and a little "get over it" and a big decrease in the manufactured outrage. There are a lot of groups out there that would benefit by changing from their position of weakness to a position of strength. If one cannot take being called a derogatory name, they have no strength at all.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

Scrappleface: GOP Iraq Pull-out Amendment to End War on AIDS

Scott Ott of is a satirical genious. Nearly every post is hilarious, so it is difficult to refrain pointing to all of them. Today's satire is about how badly the war on AIDS is going that perhaps it is time to pullout. Read here about how:

- Kofi Annan declared war on AIDS in 2001
- We are spending billions on this war
- Millions are dying in this "hopeless quagmire"
- A plan to "redeploy" medical researchers to serve elsewhere
- The plan to withdraw funding from the War on AIDS

He finishes with:
“If Iraq’s political problems that spawn terror attacks can’t be solved with soldiers, guns and money,” the GOP lawmaker said, “neither can Africa’s moral problems that spread HIV be overcome with researchers, medicine and money.”
I have added to my list of links in the place of EU Rota which sadly appears to be on permanent haiatus. It is a worthy blog that will provide a constant stream of thought-provoking satire.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Bush Admin AND Universal Health Care Take Black Eye Over Walter Reed

The situation at Walter Reed is appalling. It is hard to imagine that making sure our wounded returning from Iraq and Afganistan get the best health conditions would be overlooked. When you decide to send our men and women into harms way, it should be well planned and well thought through in all areas. While it is hard to fight three wars at once for any administration (Iraq, Afganistan and home) treatment of our wounded should be at the top. Either Bush did not inquire into it, did and was lied to or did and was told the truth. There is no really good excuse for this.

On the other hand, what we see is a window into what would happen if ever we made the decision to go with a Universal Health Care system in this country. There may be some facilities that provide good care. However, we would see the same nightmare situations that we have seen at Walter Reed and in countries that already have nationalized care. In the end we would see a two-tiered healthcare system: one paid for by the government and one where people pay for healthcare via taxes but have to pay again elsewhere to get quality care. We would have to pay to get tests in a timely manner rather than getting a "free" test too late to treat.

Many times critics of the Bush Administration may be correct in their criticism, but doing so find they are harming themselves or their agenda more. I think this is one of those times.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Fifth Grader Provides Good Role Models for Kids

The new game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" has done exceptionally well - mainly due to following on the heels of American Idol. The show is deserving of the viewership and praise. It has been well planned and designed. Jeff Foxworthy is a surprisingly good host. I say surprised because I thought he would be more "silly" given his comedian background. However, he uses his humor sporadically enough to be very effective.

The questions are not exceptionally hard. However, they are of the nature that you would tend not to remember without a refresher. You hear the question and at first think how stupidly simple, but then realize you don't know the answer.

What makes the show are the kids. Each kid is very smart. The bios on the show's website show that they do well in school. They also handle themselves very well during the show. I am sure they were prepared to be so outgoing, but they learned and do it very well. There is not a time where they are dull or aloof. I think that this forum that presents smart, good looking kids that work hard and do well in school presents very good role models for the kids viewing the show.

Liberal thinking in society almost discourages the notion of individual achievement and excellence. These kids are a refreshing counter to that ill-formed mode. Kids need to be pushed beyond medicrity and "group-think" and embrace the success the American Dream can offer to those who excel.

Yet another great show from Fox TV.

Labels: , , , ,

Choking Hypocrisy From Left

The high profile hypocrisy monitors never seem to focus on liberals / Democrats. Sure the conservative blogs and talk shows put the spotlight on them, but it is very hard to find elsewhere. The fact is that the hypocrisy on the left is so thick it has a choking effect to observe. We see jet-setter Al Gore hiding behind his Environmental Bulimia. We see the Dems different standard on perjury and pardons when you compare their treatment of Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton. Harry Reid is grandstanding and making a fool of himself demanding that Bush pledge not to pardon Libby.

There is a double standard on perjury between Libby and Tim Russert. According to Victory Toensing in National Review Online:
The court prevented the defense from impeaching Tim Russert: The NBC anchorman, who has a law degree, testified he did not know a lawyer could not accompany a witntess before the grand jury. The defense then exhumed three clips where Russert had said on the air that a lawyer cannot go into the grand jury with his client. The judge would not allow the jury to hear that other honorable people sometimes forget or misspeak when being grilled on the witness stand.

If this is the case, why is Russert still considered honorable and respected. Why no charges from Fitzgerald against the same kind of perjury that he accused Libby of? In fact there is more evidence of Russert perjury - video tape, than against Libby - witness testimony with demonstrable memory faults. I found it ironic that on CNN somebody stated that it was likely Russert's testimony and "high credibility" that tilted the decisions for the jury.

With such a mountain of examples to choose from, I will finish with John Edwards. Edwards is building his presidential campaing on class warfare and massive wealth transfers. To bolster his argument Edwards drops the name "Jesus" by stating:
I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs...I think he would be appalled, actually.
Of course nothing portrays "selfish short-term needs" like an 82,000 square foot house and a $2.6 million beach summer home. (photo courtesy of Rush Limbaugh). Rest assured if AP had been doing a similar story on a wealthy Republican, they would have squeezed in references to such excess.

The fact is that liberalism is loaded with hypocrisy. However, they bank on people being ignorant of the details. They count on the media keeping their dirty secrets from high profile exposure. They look to mitigate what is told by picturing conservative sources as angry and hateful instead of informative. Liberals have infested and infected every influential area of society: media, education, unions, science organizations, medical organizations, legal organizations, all levels and departments of government (including the Pentagon, State Department, the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department), the entertainment world. At times it seems a nearly impossible battle to fight. Ignorance, deception and disinformation are a liberal's best friend.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Belcher Cannot Keep Hand From Sabotage

As most who read here know, I like to give people nicknames: Nancy "the Stumbler" Pelosi, Chris "Bread Slice" Dodd, etc. I have long considered Alan Greenspan "the Belcher" but until now have not posted it. During his term as Fed Chairman it seemed he had an affinity to periodically "belch" out a comment that would have an immediate affect on the market. Usually it was not favorable for the economy, but sometimes he would be forced to say something nice. One might excuse this little habit and assume it was part of the job. Now that he no longer holds the position, such antics can only be driven by extreme hubris.

In the last week alone Greenspan has been belching comments about a potential downturn in the economy. In the third episode I have read he is now predicting there is a 30% chance of a recession in 2007. (Buuurrrp) A story in Bloomberg says:
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said there's a ``one-third probability'' of a U.S. recession this year and that the current expansion won't have the staying power of its decade-long predecessor.

``We are in the sixth year of a recovery; imbalances can emerge as a result,'' Greenspan, 81, said in an interview yesterday at his office in downtown Washington. ``Ten-year recoveries have been part of a much broader global phenomenon. The historically normal business cycle is much shorter'' and is likely to be this time, he added.

Greenspan's outlook contrasts with the prediction of his successor Ben S. Bernanke, who told Congress last week that the economy may strengthen this year. Bernanke's upbeat assessment helped steady stock markets on Feb. 28 after a plunge the day before that some traders attribute partly to Greenspan's musing that a recession couldn't be ruled out.

``It is possible that we can have a recession at the end of this year,'' said Greenspan, who ran the central bank for 18 years until January 2006. Bernanke, 53, declined to comment.

We see several things in that quote. First, Greenspan is retired and there is no need for him to comment any longer. Second, it comes on the heels of the shaky global markets. With the markets jittery enough, Greenspan knows that such statements can add to the jitters regardless of any substantiation. Third, his successor had come out after the market shakeup and calmed them by declaring his opinion that the economy will have an upturn this year. What would drive Greenspan to come out and contradict that? The timing, the statement and the complete lack of class here makes the Belcher look like a chump.

Finally, reading the story you would come away with the notion that his opinion is solely based on the fact that the current economic expansion has been so long - six years. You know, the low interest, low inflation, low unemployment, increased revenue economy that libs have been bashing has now been in expansion mode so long that the Belcher thinks it likely won't go on longer. He claims in the article that "...he has been careful to avoid making life difficult for his successor." The left leanings of the Greenspan family are known. I guess the thought that the Bush economy may fall in the category of one of the longest expanding economies does not sit well with him. He simply could not resist a potshot and let his successor rot.

The fact is that a 7-10 year expansion for the Bush economy with a foundation of tax cuts is anathema to liberals. Liberals cannot afford for Bush to exit his presidency with any mark of success. They have fought this economy every step of the way and it has gone up in spite of their antics. They fight tooth and nail against the war on terror. They opposed the surge because even though Bush has had shortcomings so far, a good final outcome in Iraq would make them look quite bad. This is why some liberal dems are revolting against their boxed in leadership on Iraq funding. The surge is showing early sign of progress and that simply must be stopped by their thinking.

Shame on Greenspan. His cowardly 30% chance of recession allows him to step in and cause potential damage while not losing any credibility if it does not happen. After all there is a 70% chance it won't happen. The question is what are you hoping for? Are you hoping the economy will continue to expand? Are you hoping the surge will produce good results? Whose side are you on?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 05, 2007

Kidney Sale Underscores State of Muslim Women

There has been a lot of attention about how women in the Muslim world are treated. The main icon of this state is the skin covering Burka. You can see an entertaining sample of burkas in a video posted over at Malott's Blog here. We have all heard stories of women being stoned for fornication or adultery - though we never hear about what happens to the man. We hear about women being raped, then being punished or "honor killed" for it. There are the horror stories of genital mutilation that robs Muslim women of any sexual pleasure. There are claims this is limited to Africa, but this story states otherwise:
But at the village level, those who commit the practice believe it to be religiously mandated. Religion is not only theology but also practice. And the practice is widespread throughout the Middle East. Many diplomats, international organization workers, and Arabists argue that the problem is localized to North Africa or sub-Saharan Africa,[4] but they are wrong. The problem is pervasive throughout the Levant, the Fertile Crescent, and the Arabian Peninsula, and among many immigrants to the West from these countries. Silence on the issue is less reflective of the absence of the problem than insufficient freedom for feminists and independent civil society to raise the issue.
As we hear all of these stories, we are commonly told that they are lies, or it is limited or that we are misinterpreting things. We are told that the woman is lifted up in honor in Islam. While this may be the case in some instances, I do not see any evidence it is the norm. There is a recent story that shows how pervasive the lowliness of women is in Muslim countries. It involves multiple players at different levels of society. A man conspired with a hospital to arrange for his wife's kidney to be removed without her knowledge or consent. He then sold the kidney in order to buy a tractor. The story in the UK Telegraph states:

A farmer persuaded doctors to remove one of his wife's kidneys so that he could sell it for money to buy a tractor, she has told police.

Safia Thaheem Bibi discovered the organ was missing only when she sought treatment for an unrelated complaint.

She told Pakistani police that she confronted her husband who confessed he had used the 70,000 rupees (about £600) he got for the kidney to buy a second-hand tractor for his rice fields.

She goes to a local council of elders so her husband can be punished:
She told her parents, who called a local jirga, or council of elders. He confessed to them, she said. "The jirga asked him to apologise to me and did not order any punishment to him. We did not agree to the decision and went to the police to lodge a criminal case against my husband."
The husband is given no punishment and is told to say he is "sorry". That is supposed to balance justice. If this were in the U.S. they might have told him to check himself into rehab. So we have the husband, the conspiring doctors and now a group of elders who view women so lowly that they all think this act is fine or no big deal. This lowly view of women obviously permeates the society and the stories keep coming in.

If this husband wanted to raise the money, he could have sold one of his own kidneys to get the tractor. In the U.S. we might see this as extreme. In other countries that do not share the great opportunities to financial success, it is understandable that one might want to go to extreme measures to get ahead. To say he treated his wife like a second class citizen would be too kind. in his eyes she was like an animal in the barn to be used. She was lower than a slave. The society around him supported and agreed with that view of women.

As with suicide bombers and insurgents who indiscriminately murder innocents, the Muslim world responds with the sound of chirping crickets. They stay silent when they can. If they must speak to it they deny, minimize and justify. My question is "what does it take for the world body to get angry with the Muslim world?" When such acts occur with no world response while the world so easily conjurs up anger at the United States it becomes clear that such selective anger is an agenda and a tool.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Catastrophic Man-Made Climate Change Far From Settled Science

It has been some time since I have posted directly on Climate Change/Global Warming. Note, I have no problem using the new CYA term Climate Change (replacing GW in case it becomes GC). From now on every time I post on Climate Change, I will begin with the following points:

1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth.

I came up with 4 of these questions some time back while disputing in the comments section here. I added the 5th later. At the time I was ready to throw in the towel on numbers 1 & 2. Recent revelations have caused me to back away from #2 a bit. Here is my run-down on these questions.

Question 1: So, yes there is proof that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree. Conservatives spent a lot of time being skeptical about this point and have been shown to be wrong "to a degree".

Question2: Have the activities of man caused this 1 degree warmth? Like I said, I was ready to yield this point but then a recent flurry of information on the subject has put me back in the skeptical column. Here are some of the recent things:

1. The Man-made global warming theory is partly based on climate models. While I have posted and commented before on the fact that computer models are programs that do what they are programmed to do. If the programmer is biased OR is lacking key information to put into the program then the output will be flawed. Garbage in - Garbage Out. Recently, we have seen that the climate models have been wrong about their predictions for Antarctica. You can read this article titled "Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions". The author does state that this does not necessarily mean the model is wrong. You would think it would be a good time to see why it gives incorrect predictions and to drop the "settled science" jargon that is based on a model that has taken a serious credibility hit.

2. The Man-made global warming theory is based on the notion that there is a consensus among scientists around the world that it is true. Now how can there be a consensus among scientists when there is a petition with over 17000 signatures of scientists that do not seem too worried about the effects of Global Warming.

3. There are alternate sources of greenhouse gases that combined dwarf those caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. These sources include: volcanoes, oceans, livestock, trees and plants, and of course human non-fossil fuel sources (breathing and flatulence). So are we to be forced to not only give up our modern conveniences, but will we be asked to give up eating meat and reduce our population?

4. There are alternate theories for the causes of global warming.

a. There is increased solar activity that may be shown by the warming effect that is happening on Mars. The National Geographic article is quick to point out that mainstream scientists dismiss this as a coincidence. They prefer to believe it is caused by planetary "wobble". The question is do they reject it because they are already onboard the Climate Change bandwagon or do they really have some evidence. The article only gives opinion and no real meat to go by.

b. The theory that high solar magnetic activity causes fewer cosmic rays to reach the earth. This results in fewer clouds to be formed and warming to occur. Henrik Svensmark, the Danish scientist who originated the theory says ""It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds." So what some think are the effect, is actually the cause.

c. The warming is a natural cycle that happens periodically. Here is a good link to show that the famous "Hockey Stick" graph that raised such a furor on global warming actually left out the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Neil Boortz in his famous list "Why I am Skeptical About Man-made Global Warming" wonders at the seeming deception in the oversight. He has three points worth mentioning:

- What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
- Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
- Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

5. Global Warming supporters want to cut off debate. They use terms like "settled science", "Global Warming Deniers" (making them equal with holocaust deniers). Neil Boortz asks in his list:
- Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
- There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
- Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Isn't the scientific community curious about that? Their champion Al Gore has been challenged to debates on the subject. In addition to his hypocrisy, he is either a coward or so arrogant that he will not debate it.

Question 3: Even if points 1 and 2 are at some point proven to be true. Does this mean that catastrophe is waiting for mankind? Climate Change proponents talk about settled science and scientific consensus. Their message lumps the first 3 of my questions into one category. In reality I see no evidence that anything beyond question 2 is considered "settled". The petition I referred to earlier signed by over 17,000 scientists has this bold statement in the petition heading:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Not only do they see no fear of catastrophe, they see the potential for benefits upon the planet. This is not the first time I have seen this. Several years ago there was a Reader's Digest article that put forth the notion that global warming could bring about a global paradise. On the radio recently I heard someone state that Al Gore was speaking about the potential increase in annual deaths due to heat related issues. He refused to debate the point that many more deaths than his estimate were already annually caused cold related issues. (I wish I had a link for that). Here are links for recent cold related deaths. Related to Midwest Snowstorm. Related to Tornadoes caused by cold winter.

The wild claims of catastrophe are for two main reasons:

1. To generate fear and therefore bulldoze past the need to prove their contentions. They accused Bush of doing this when he was justifying attacking Iraq. Now they are using the same tactic with Climate Change.

2. They want to get in your wallet. Some feel that much of the environmental movement is based on an anti-capitalistic bent. While I may feel that way, it is difficult to prove. However, there is no doubt with recent developments that the world has their eye on the United States wealth and are eager to take a cut.
- President Jaques Chirac of France recently threatened the U.S. to sign onto climate pacts or face a "Carbon Tax".
- The UN Climate Panel recommendation of a Carbon Tax "to prevent catastrophic climate change".

As an aside, even if the UN had the best of intentions a global tax is too much of a threat to each country's sovereignty. We have also seen what happens when the UN gets massive amounts of money in their hands. It will be diverted to the pockets of those in power and not to the cause it was set up for. There is simply no way to hold the UN accountable.

Question 4: Even if questions 1-3 could be proven is there really anything feasible that can be done? How much reduction can be made to with certainty reverse the catastrophic effects of Global Warming? We would need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to the point that our transportation industry would be wiped out. We could not replace it with animal driven methods due to their "output" of gases. Nobody seems to want to curtail China for its increase in emissions. Even those who sign onto agreements to reduce emissions do not keep them consistently. There are two alternatives that have not been given much attention. These may in the long run be more cost effective than preventative measures.

1. In the event the catastrophic events look like they will occur, set aside resources to prevent / mitigate massive deaths. Pay to re-locate those in the path of catastrophe. Pay to move those whose country is so devastated by warming that they cannot sustain themselves.

2. Invest in technology that will counter emissions. Recently there have been ideas popping up such as burying the gases under the ocean or in the earth where they will leak out more slowly. Others have suggested sending them into outer space. Sir Richard Branson recently made a significant move in this direction by offering a reward of $25 million to whomever could devise a plan to rid our atmosphere of the CO2 gases using technology.

Question 5: In the event or anticipation of the event that catastrophic man-made global warming is proven to be a crock, this does not justify ignoring man's harm to the environment. Conservatives have wasted a lot of time fighting against man's responsibility to the environment. Liberals have harmed the cause of environmental protection by extremism. While U.S. libs fought against nuclear power, Europe built nuclear plants. Extreme measures that do not allow for the reasonable move in the right direction give some ammunition to block moderate environmental measures. Both sides have guilt. I for one am all for clean water and air. I am all for technologies that will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. There is windmill power on land and sea. There are under ocean current generators. There is solar power. We should continue to research cleaner ways of burning fuel.

The main thrust of this post is that the debate must look at the entire picture and be honest. There is too much dishonesty, disinformation, spin and hysteria. The worst crime is for those who want to cut off debate completely. Some may have good intentions by not wanting to waste time preventing something they believe will happen. By doing so they turn science into a religion. I and others have posted on the similarities to the Climate Change crowd and organized religion. Those of religious background know the difference between a religion and a cult. I think the Global Warming crowd is often more similar to a cult. There is also a strange rush among GW proponents. I often wonder if those that are using this issue as an agenda item and tool to accomplish other goals are rushing before the earth begins to cool again. If solar hyper-activity is the cause, it will reduce in the near future. If debate holds off measures that will harm the U.S. economy or implement a global tax long enough for the pendulum to swing back, the left will not recover from the embarrassment. However, if the left gets their way in these areas the power they will gain and the weakening of the U.S. is worth the gamble. By then if the earth cools, they will claim victory that the steps taken prevented disaster. The water carriers in the media will be more than happy to support them.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wyoming Does the Humane Thing

Wyoming has done a humane act. They have repealed the state sales tax on food items. According to the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle:
Former Rep. Ann Robinson beamed as the governor signed the bill making the temporary removal of the sales tax on food passed last year permanent.

Bills to lift the tax had first been brought by lawmakers in the 1950s, she said, so Wednesday also marked the end of a very long process for that idea as well.

"Food is the most basic need of the people of Wyoming," she said, "and it is not a place for collecting taxes."

According to this website, most states have an exemption from or limited taxation on food and Wyoming has re-joined humanity by adding their exemption. While Illinois limits taxation on food items, they still do some taxation. It boils down to this: if I need to purchase something to survive, the government should not be there to take a chunk of my money when buying it. This includes food, medicine, gas to heat my home and cook my food, and medical services. Indirectly I should not be charged tax on gasoline that gets me to work every day in order to put food on my family's table.

Fun Stuff:
Now on the flip side for fun, there are quite a number of food items that I do not need to survive. Some examples might be: potato chips, ice cream, cookies, twinkies and other such snacks, frozen pizzas, soda pop, and last but not least........kool-aid.

On a non-food side note: does anybody know if there is any sales tax on Bibles, Korans, Books of Mormon, etc.? If so, that looks like a fine case for the ACLU to fight. That would be a REAL breach of separation of church and state. It reminds me of the church I used to attend. Often there would be police cars camping out in the parking lot way out of sight to trap speeders going by. One night I was late and came whipping in the parking lot (I had some ushering duty to perform) and at the last second saw the police car. I wonder if they had given me a ticket if I could have claimed separation of church and state to get out of the ticket?

Enough fun. Good job Wyoming for doing the right thing. You never should have had a food tax to begin with, though.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, March 02, 2007

Gold Standard of Environmentally Friendly House and the Gore Hypocrisy

Jason over at the Texas RainMaker blog has a very interesting post on the subject of the environmental hypocrisy of Al Gore. Recently Sean Hannity and the conservative think tank have been drawing attention to the massive carbon output of Al Gore's 4 houses. Hannity has also been pointing out Gore's many travels on private jets while preaching to the great unwashed about their greenhouse gases. Jason quotes a liberal blog to describe the house of "the 2000 Presidential Candidate":

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

Wow, somebody really cares about the environment here. Why are they knocking Gore around so much with that house to wear as a green badge of honor. WAIT! That's not Gore's home. That is the OTHER 2000 presidential candidate's home - George W. Bush. Glad to see at least one liberal source is giving Bush a thumb's up on something.

But wait, Al Gore makes up for all of his waste with papal indulgences -I mean carbon offsets. When I first heard about the carbon offsets my first thought was "Wow, that sounds just like the papal indulgences of the 16th century Catholic Church. You could sin all week and buy forgiveness on the weekend. You could even buy forgiveness for dead relatives. I was going to post on the need for a modern day Martin Luther to post 95 theses denouncing the carbon indulgence offsets. I guess others have also thought about it and have been writing about it. In my delay it is no longer original. So I have come up with another analogy. It is like somebody with an eating disorder gourging themselves on food and then running to the toilet to stick their finger down their throat to make themselves throw up. I think I am the first to coin the term Environmental Bulimia to describe carbon offsets.

Next Jason points out that even with the carbon offsets, Al Gore is playing games. Guess who he buy the carbon offsets from - himself. He buys the offsets from an organization he helped found and has a personal stake in. Wow, what things these political "rock stars" can get away with. Is anybody on the left embarrassed of their champion yet? If not, they have some major blinders on.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Won an Icon for the Gipper

Today is an amazing day!! I am absolutely thrilled!! The Honor Network keeps making my day. From making their rankings, to adding the fast and friendly email icon, to adding the anti-UN icon. Now they have topped it all by adding the Ronald Reagan Conservative icon. How great is that! Reagan will likely be the greatest president of my lifetime. It will be tough to top him ever, especially with the way the country seems to keep sinking in its standards. I know this will make the liberals want to gag, but every time I see a clip or a quote of Reagan I have a rush of emotions that are a mixture of appreciation for his greatness and how much I wish he were president today. You never really had to worry about Reagan letting you down with compromise. Sure there were a couple of imperfect moments, but Reagan was solid in what he believed and did not sell out those who voted for him.

Each president is dealt a "deck of cards". George W. Bush was dealt a deck of recession and terrorism. He has handled the economy well considering the recession taking hold before he took office and the major hit it took on 9/11. That success story unfortunately has been crowded out by the insane spending. The war on terror was an opportunity to lead and protect the country. Bush has done well by sticking to his principles in the face of massive criticism. However, shortcomings in the execution of the war (focusing too much on winning hearts and minds than winning the war) and his inability to communicate have nearly robbed his chance at greatness. If Reagan had been dealt this hand, he would have taken it and made Churchill and Roosevelt look like pikers. The Great Communicator would still have 70%+ behind the war by his effective distribution of the message.

So thanks to the Honor Network for the Ronald Reagan icon. I don't think that one can be topped. I have reached the summit.

On a side note, they rated me #1 again. Sigh. So many others are more deserving. Maybe brevity is a key element in their scoring. Anyway, thanks for the honor. Two notes to Honor Network. I really hope you drop the advertising to the Pl*yB@y store (masked so I don't get any hits for people google searching it). At least it is only a face on the ad, but I think you detract from an otherwise very good site. Second, I hope you correct the spelling of Michelle Malkin's name. It is Malkin, not Makin. Other than those two things, I love your site.

Labels: , ,