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

Friday, September 28, 2007

Congressman Wants to Drop a Dingleberry on United States

Rep. John Dingell has his sights on the money that you and I work so hard for under the ruse of fighting Global Warming. According to the NY Post:
Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress.

And he is proposing a recipe many people won't like - a 50-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

With gas prices already high and the housing market slowdown, Dingell wants to take steps that will really hit our wallet at the pump and cut an already ailing housing market off at the knees. Who knows what bad experiences Dingell had as a child to convert him into a sadist that likes to rub salt in wounds and kick people while they are down?

With this "Dingell-berry" the Democrats show once again how this Climate Change / Global Warming farce is designed for one thing: to separate more money from American citizens. The left refuses to do a cost-benefit analysis on the whole climate change shell game. Of my five global warming questions, they only bother with attempting to prove the first question. Recent exposure of corrupt data and contaminated weather stations (where more than half of the 25% analyzed don't meet federal guidelines) are beginning to cast doubt on the one point I have stipulated. They cannot prove man is the sole or even main cause of global warming. They can't prove the level of consequences, nor are they willing to concede the potential benefits of global warming in certain parts of the world. Most importantly they cannot prove that by taking more of our hard-earned money that they can do a darn thing to stop global warming or mitigate the consequences.

As always with posts on climate change, here are my five questions we need to answer before succumbing to Climate Change Alarmism:
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?

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Clinton Control Freaks

One of the biggest banes of my life has been having to deal with more than my fair share of control freaks. Some readers may be familiar with the four major personality types: Sanquine, Melancholy, Plegmatic and Choleric. You can read about them in a number of places like this. Whenever I start taking a dislike to somebody's personality or the way they operate I usually stop and analyze and realize the person is a choleric. Sorry to any choleric readers but with all of my experience on this issue I can boil cholerics down to one simple description: control freak. The funny part is that the desire for control usually does not center around anything really important. It usually is focused on petty details. Sure, some look to control every aspect of everything with everybody but most just want to select the areas they have the least association with and hammer you senseless with demands. Oh the stories I could tell. I start to subconsciously detect a choleric with a special choleric detecting nerve in my head that starts to throb. It is similar to being very focused on what you are doing, but vaguely aware that you are starting to get a headache only to realize somebody has been playing rap or heavy metal music around you quiet enough to not really notice at first.

While it is no revelation that the Clintons are control freaks, I have not thought about it much until lately. I keep hearing Hillary identifying areas she wants government to control. She wants to "take those oil profits" and use them to convert to political power for Dems. Her lust for control over the health care system is coming out again using low cost numbers that do not even pass the laugh test.

The desire for control also involves the little things. We read recently about how the Clintons bullied GQ Magazine into killing a negative story about them threatening to pull access to Bill on a story later this year. First stop and imagine the outcry and media focus if George Bush, Dick Cheney or another GOP pol had strong-armed some media outlet into killing a story. While conservative blogs and talk shows have picked this up, the MSM has simply yawned at such a hostile move against a free press.

In yet another dumpster dive into the world of petty control there is another strong-arm move by the Clintons simply to get a picture removed from the wall of the Osso Buco restaurant. It is of Chelsea and the restaurant owner, Nino Selimaj. According to WCBSTV.COM:
Mr. Clinton's Counseler, Douglas J. Band, sent a letter to Selimaj with the demands and even a threat should Selimaj choose to leave the photograph up

On official William Jefferson Clinton letterhead, was a threat to take further action: "We reserve the right to exercise any and all options available to us if you refuse to comply."
Apparently Chelsea has suddenly decided she does not want the photo on the wall after posing for it and it being displayed for 5 years. She has sent in strong-arm Daddy to take care of it for his precious darling. As the Clintons continue to enjoy power, we can expect to continue to see such control freak displays. I can expect that nerve in my head to continue to throb as I observe it.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

David Shuster Embarrasses Himself Trying to Embarrass GOP Congresswoman

This story is simply too rich. It seems every day we are seeing the Left time after time try to nail the Right and the ploy explodes in their face. We saw the guy that called Bush an idiot for falling off a Segway fall off of one and break three ribs. We saw the BetrayUs ad blow up in the Left's face and by this single gaffe gave their momentum against our presence in Iraq a jolt to the core.

David Shuster of MSNBC did a little research before interviewing GOP Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee. He thought an ambush would be just the thing for a supposedly objective journalist to do. Here is a partial transcript of the slimy attempted "gotcha" courtesy
SHUSTER: Let's talk about the public trust. You represent of course a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last soldier from your district who was killed in Iraq?

MARSHA BLACKBURN: The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq from my district? I do not know.

SHUSTER: OK, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the ninth, 2007. How come you didn't know the name?

He even later went for the jugular vein with this zinger after she expressed appreciation for the sacrifices of our troops:
SHUSTER: Well, you weren't appreciative enough to know the name of this young man . . . I still think it's a little bit surprising that you didn't know the name of this last soldier killed in Iraq who's only 18 years old yet you do know so much about the ad and the tactics you didn't like.
So we finally see the root of Shuster's attack being sour grapes over the MoveOn debacle and its political fallout. Well it turns out that Pvt. Jeremy Bohannon did not come from Blackburn's district. He came from Democrat John Tanner's 8th district. In Shuster's rush to leap to the defense of MoveOn.Oink, he came with shoddy research and has only succeeded in embarrassing himself. He has come out with a stiff and awkward apology.

Can you imagine the sick feeling in the pit of his stomach he must have felt when he was informed he had botched the hatchet job? I can think of a few things that would cause such a feeling. Flying by a hidden cop in a speed trap, seeing the radar gun on you and looking at the speedometer showing 90 in a 55. Or the day Dan Rather found out the documents he was going to nail Bush with were forged and technology could prove it. Or being in front of hundreds of wedding guests and the bride suddenly says she can't go through with it and runs out. Or finding out your flight has canceled and you are going to miss embarking on your cruise. The best part is the ammunition this provides every conservative for future interviews with Shuster. Oh David, are you sure you got your research right on that?

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Bush Tries to Save United Nations From Irrelevance

I have long pointed out the utter worthlessness that the United Nations represents. I cannot state one thing that the United Nations has actually done that justifies the incredible amount of taxpayer money to sustain it. I cannot point to one thing the United Nations has done to deserve a modicum of respect from the world body. The most kind word I can think of to describe the UN is "joke". They are anti-American and anti-Israel. They waste much of their time and energy trying to get their hands into the back pocket of the United States scaring the world with the Global Warming farce. Leaders use the platform for their own selfish benefits for their interests.

President Bush's speech to the United Nations contains similar sentiment. He recognizes that with all of the money, people and resources this body could actually rise to the occasion and address some important world problems. George Bush states:
"This great institution must work for great purposes: to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and diseases, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty and despair. Every member of the United Nations must join in this mission of liberation," he said.
Bush states examples of tyranny around the world that the UN could join together to fight: Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Darfur, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela.

Of course with all of these countries representing serious human rights violations, in supreme irony there were about 700 protesters outside chanting against Bush and Cheney and critics pointing to Guantanamo Bay. I have noted before that the treatment of Gitmo at most could be considered uncomfortable and not torture. The fact is that even if critics had a valid point about Gitmo, we would be comparing how the US treats its enemies to how these other countries treat their citizens.

Bush is correct in his challenge to the United Nations to look for worthy causes to target. The question is whether the UN will continue to waste itself on frivolity, or if it will actually take the steps necessary to become relevant.

Labels: ,

Ever Give Advice to an Opponent?

Have you ever given advice to somebody who was an enemy or an opponent? There are several ways to do this: sincerely, deceptively or sarcastically. You can give advice that will help them if they take it, or you can give advice that will really help you. Why do I bring this up? Apparently, President Bush is "quietly" providing advice to Hillary Clinton and other Democratic presidential contenders. The advice centers around their position on Iraq as a candidate and actually as President should one of them make it. An article in the Examiner begins with this opener:
President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.
One could glean from the article that Bush is simply serving himself by trying to influence decisions by the next President. The article states:

Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”

“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

Bolten is the White House Chief of Staff and is the source of the claims of advice. Some could read this and claim that Bush is just trying to control things during the election cycle and beyond. Those with good motives can have the best reasons for wanting to influence an outcome. The article points out how different it is to be a candidate vs. actually being the President. The candidate is shooting for enough popularity to get elected. Hopefully a President is looking to do the right thing regardless of popularity. The most insightful section of the article states:

To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.

“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

To that end, Bush is institutionalizing controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president.

“Look, I’d like to make as many hard decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my successor is,” Bush said. “And then that person is going to have to come and look at the same data I’ve been looking at, and come to their own conclusion.”

A Democrat candidate is either going to be sincere in their campaigning or they are going to say whatever they think will get them elected. Either motive, once elected they would need to live with their words on the campaign trail. A senior White House official states it well:
“One of two things will happen if a Democrat gets elected president,” he said. “They will either have to withdraw U.S. troops in order to remain true to the rhetoric — in which case, any consequences in the aftermath fall on their heads. Or they have to break their word, in which case they encourage fratricide on the left of their party. Now that’s a thorny issue to work through.”
The Democrats in Congress so far know the heavy price they will pay if they take the necessary action to pull us out of Iraq and the horrible consequences are laid at their feet. All of the games they have played this year have been targeted at getting enough spineless GOP Congressmen and Senators to join them in order to insulate them from the results. If a Democrat is elected President, there will be no political cover against the consequences. There will be no hiding place for one that runs on pulling out of Iraq and then stays.

Take it or leave it, this is strong advice for the Dems to really think about.

Labels: , , ,

Sign of Hand Overplay Coming

You can always count on the left to overplay their hand and shoot themselves in the foot. Whether out of cockiness or desperation they choose to launch out into waters too deep for their cause. The interview between Merideth Vieira and Afghan President Hamid Karzai may be a sign of things to come. She calls Afghanistan "The Forgotten War" and asks "What went wrong". She is taken aback when Karzai declares we won that war. You can read excerpts from the interview here.

One of the major premises I have written here is that when there is a worthy cause, you stick with it regardless of challenges and setbacks. When we fought against the madman Hitler in WWII, the number of casualties and setbacks never caused the Allies to think of giving up. The cause was worthy, and we were willing to do what it took to remove this threat from the world.

I have written before on the inconsistency of the left between Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had casualties and setbacks in both arenas. Until now, the left has skirted the subject of Afghanistan. Getting back to my premise of a worthy cause, I think the left realizes that the worthiness of the cause in Afghanistan is a much easier sell than Iraq. So they are willing to portrait defeat in Iraq, but have been mum on Afghanistan.

Vieira now shows signs of the left chomping at the bit to launch a tirade against the effort in Afghanistan like they have done in Iraq. They are either drunk on the wave they perceive they have ridden with Iraq or the recent anti-war debacle with the Petraeus report has made them nervous. Whatever their reason, such a move will be fatal. The American spirit that demanded action in Afghanistan for those complicit in the attacks on September 11th may be dormant, but it lies just below the surface waiting to be revived. An attack against the war in Afghanistan would be a true revelation of the colors of the hard left, and those colors are not red, white and blue.

The worthiness of invading Iraq will be up for debate for many years to come. However, the worthiness of staying in Iraq to stabilize the country and prevent a certain massacre if we left prematurely should be clear. The worthiness of responding to September 11th in Afghanistan is so clear that any effort to undermine it will suffer well deserved consequences. It may be that Vieira has simply placed her toe in the water here. If this is a sign the left is willing to pursue this course, look for yet another shining example of the left overplaying their hand. They are quite good at it.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, September 24, 2007

Looking for the Holy Grail of Apples

For a number of years now I have been on a low key quest for what I term the "Holy Grail" of apples. When I was a kid, the apples simply tasted better. At that time a Red Delicious was actually delicious. There are several key qualities to an apple: the look and coloring on the outside; the texture, moisture and crispness of the inside; and of course the fullness and sweetness of taste. For the record, I don't really care what an apple looks like on the outside but that seems to be the one and only concern of grocers today. The problem is so bad that apples are very much like politicians - especially presidential candidates. All polish and shine on the outside, but dry and mealy on the inside; and completely tasteless.

I have never tasted a delicious apple that did not have the right texture on the inside. So it is not similar to the old saying "Fast, Good, Cheap pick any two". I have tasted a sweet apple that was ugly on the outside. So an apple can be ugly but it must be moist and crisp to even hope to taste good. An apple should be moist enough to drip on your chin when you bite into it. An apple must be firm enough to make a denture wearer nervous.

The taste of an apple must be sweet. I am not talking about a little sweet - a lot sweet. It must be so sweet that any temptation to eat a piece of candy instead is driven from your mind. In the requirement of an apple to "taste sweet", most apples today do not get past the first word - taste. Most apples today do not have any taste at all. Take a glass of water, a bottle of the new Fruit H2O drinks (that are water with a few drops of flavor in them) and a glass of Kool-Aid. 80% of the apples today would be closer to the glass of water and the rest of them at best like the Fruit H2O.

In my quest, I have actually bought some of the individual apples at the grocers that end up costing almost $3 each. A little better than the tasteless mush in the bags, but still no prize winners. At this point in my failed quest I truly do not care how much it costs. I would pay $5 or more each for a truly delicious apple. I would buy it online if I had to. I would drive or make vacation plans around the location of a great apple if it were a sure bet. I am hoping that somebody reading this will be able to help me end this quest. Any help would be appreciated. The apples today are so poor in quality that they have sunk down to the level of a simple staple food like potatoes or rice. We have so many exotic fruits and I love many of them. However, nothing is quite as good as a great apple.


Sunday, September 23, 2007

Weekend in Door County Paradise

This last weekend Olive Oyl and I spent some time in Door County, Wisconsin. It was a five hour drive, but it was well worth it. We had received a 2 day getaway at a resort there as part of a larger purchase last year. It was about to expire and I finally set the date. We were supposed to go with some friends, but they had to cancel at the last minute. The accommodations can house up to eight people, so my wife and I were swallowed up in the place. The picture you see is one of the buildings, where we had one half. I don't think we have ever stayed in a nicer place.

Door County is a mix of beautiful scenery and tourist attractions. Just before you get to Green Bay, WI a large peninsula juts out into Lake Michigan. Much of this is Door County. We toured Fish Creek, Ephraim and Ellison Bay. There were many beautiful sights to see with some nice overlooks into the lake. We also saw the beginning of the leaves changes to fall colors.

Saturday night we ate dinner at an unusual restaurant. Al Johnson's is a Swedish restaurant that has an unusual roof. On top of the wood, there a layer of dirt and grass that looks like a nicely manicured lawn. I did not get the history behind this, but think it is some Swedish tradition. The dinner was a nice touch to a very nice weekend. I would highly recommend Door County for either a Summer or Autumn visit.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Cate Blanchett Takes Recycling to a New Level

For some time now I have held a mild resentment toward Cate Blanchett. I am a big fan of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Like all other fans, I was thrilled when I heard of the Trilogy being filmed. I was curious about how each scene would be made, what would be cut and especially who would play whom. My reaction to each cast member ranged from satisfied to impressed, with one single exception: Galadriel. When reading of the beauty of Galadriel described in The Fellowship of the Ring, the Silmarillian and Unfinished Tales it was a tall order from the beginning. However, to me, Cate Blanchett's face (especially with the hair pulled back for the revealing of her elven ears) more closely resembles a horse's rear end than the Lady of the Wood. Other than this blight, the series was fantastic.

Drudge is highlighting a rather interesting fact about Cate. According to this eccentric portrait of Cate Blanchett in, the actress is taking recycling to a new level. The piece states:
Green before it was hip—she cites Al Gore and David de Rothschild as heroes and believes that leaf blowers "sum up everything that is wrong with the human race"—the couple are trying to make the ecological footprint of the home as small as possible, installing solar panels and even a filtration system that will allow them to drink their own wastewater.
My first thought was to note how committed to the environmental cause must be to take such a step. Then I thought, pretty much all the water we drink is recycled waste water. Take the big city of Chicago for instance. All the wastewater is collected, treated and sent back into Lake Michigan. Incoming water from Lake Michigan is treated and sent to our taps for drinking. We get treated waste from millions of people and fish. Is Blanchett's filtration system really green, or is it like many environmental actions that do more harm than good? If everybody had one, would it take so much more energy to use than a centralized system for everybody? Is this really a green motive, or does Cate not want to drink the filtered waste of the masses? I wonder what her friends will think when they come to her house and she offers them a drink of water?

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 17, 2007

Rudi Spikes Betrayus Ad Back in MoveOn's Face

There is nothing in volleyball like a good spike. A giant player leaping with a full arm sweep arching down to blast the ball right in the opposing players face to score the point. Chalk one up for Rudi Giuliani for doing just that in the New York Times Ad war. We have read about the NYT granting a HUGE discount to MoveOn.oink in order to call General Petraeus a liar. When challenged about the favorable pricing and the damning link to liberal bias, the NYT eeked out some lame excuse about standby rates. Basically, you can get a heavy discount if you don't care what date the ad goes in and the paper ads it when there is no other advertisers to fill the space. Somehow MoveOn gets their ad in place the day that General Petraeus is testifying.

Rudi Giuliani then demands of the NYT to get the same rate in order to run a counter ad. Publicly the NYT grants the rate in a standby mode with no guarantee it will go in last Friday. Somehow, twice in the same week a standby full page ad goes in the NYT on the exact date requested. Somehow. Can you imagine the big stir if Rudi's ad did not go in after Oink's did?

Not only did Rudi score a major point in getting the NYT to give him the space and rate, the ad scored a double blow against MoveOn and Hillary Clinton. The full ad can be seen here. Rudi provides an impressive list describing the impeccable record of General Petraeus. It would have taken too much ink and space to show a countering list of Hillary Clinton's many shortcomings, so Rudi simply lets her name speak for itself by next asking:
Who should America listen to...

A decorated soldier's commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton's commitment to defending

With such a simple question Rudi clearly exposes the position of the Democrats as being bought and paid for by the far left groups like MoveOn. Dems like Hillary are so beholden to these groups and by their own screeching rhetoric over the last few years are so invested in defeat that they come out with claw and fang against a General who has done nothing to deserve such an attack except say something they do not like.

Rudi scores several points here. Those described above against Hillary and MoveOn. He also embodied what conservatives really wish that George W. Bush would do: respond to the screeching attacks directly and effectively. Instead of fighting by proxy and stealth, Rudi takes off his gloves and gives Hillary a bloody lip. The Dems have been engaging in no holds barred smashmouth politics since 2000. Only such direct responses as these clearly show the public the positions of both sides and will reveal a clear win of ideology. It is more important for ideas to win than for people or administrations to win. Bush should take a few lessons from Rudi on this one.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Any Bets That Bin Laden is Alive?

Is there anybody willing to bet money that Osama Bin Laden is alive? If so, I am beginning to think you have a good chance of losing your money - though it might take a long time to prove. Apparently Neal Krawetz, a digital image forensics expert claims the latest "Blackbeard" video of Bin Laden is a fake. Not that it isn't Bin Laden, but that the video has been spliced and diced in ways that make you wonder what motive they might have. According to a CNet story on Krawetz' findings:

More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.

[Bold emphasis mine].

Seems like every new tape release by Bin Laden has some strange disconnected aura to it. I think the likelihood that Bin Laden is dead is pretty high. Not very glamorous to die of some health ailment while cowering in caves hiding from the United States. Which is why his followers would want to keep juicing his name to keep up morale. Sure, I can't prove he is dead. However, would anybody that thinks he is alive put money on it? I think there is enough doubt to prevent that.

Labels: , ,

Doctor Sanity Spells Out the Democratic Strategies for Coping with Petraeus

This is one of the strategies represented by a series of cartoons Dr. Sanity has found and displays. It represents the "Rage" strategy. Be sure and go to her post to see the "Denial", "Projection", "Passive-Aggressive", "Suicidal" and "Homicidal" strategies also represented by a cartoon.

Labels: , ,

Media Bias Without Saying a Word?

Can the media exhibit bias by not even saying one word? Sure! In a blast from the past here is a link to my very first "real" post after the introductory one. It was called "Silence is a Powerful Tool". The media uses tricks like determining something is not newsworthy. I have a feeling that if they setup a website called and placed all the stories they buried under this guise, it would be quite a popular site. While the media is covering the antics and drama of Norman Hsu, they are being quite silent on the money trail. They are displaying a typical lack of curiosity for facts that are likely damaging to Democratic candidates. Remember all of the digging the media did on the money trail of lobbyist Jack Abramoff? Well, the blogs had to do most of the covering of the involvement of Democrats with Abramoff, but the media went after the GOP-Abramoff money trail like a hound dog on the scent.

A few days ago, had another interesting story where media can show bias while being silent. The New York Times like any other paper charges advertisers money for taking out ads. Terry Trippany of Newbusters gives us a link to what a full page political ad would cost and a link to a news story showing what Moveon.oink actually paid for the ad. Instead of the normal charge of $167,157 for the full page ad to charge an honorable General with betraying his country, the New York Times only charged Moveon $65,000 for a discount of over $102,000.

I did see that there were ways of getting some discounted rates such as buying multiple ads. Perhaps they have some kind of frequent advertisers discount, but that is still a hefty discount. I look forward to seeing some kind of explanation, but so far after waiting a few days I have not seen one. If indeed the Grey Lady provided an under the table deal for an ideological friend, it would be yet another example of how powerful silent bias can be.

Uncle Jimbo files a complaint with the FEC over NYT hefty discount for MoveOn.Oink

Update II:
Rudy Giuliani is demanding the NYT give him the same discount rate for a full page political ad he wants to run

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

September 11 Tribute Highlights

There are many who want September 11th to return to a normal day. They chafe against the Tributes and Remembrances wishing they would just go away. These people need to realize that over 60 years later, we still remember Pearl Harbor and for decades to come we will remember September 11th. This year my tribute is to highlight some of the better tributes I have read. I am sure that there are many, many good ones out there; but these are my selections:

Here is my Pictorial Tribute from last year that shows my collection of artistic drawings done by people around the country and submitted to Marvel Comics. The power of this artwork is amazing, and brings me to tears every year when I look at them. I wish I could give direct credit to the artists, but I did not have a blog when I captured them, nor knew that I would need their names some day.

I draw attention to CNN's tribute for a few reasons. It was a stronger tribute than provided, so I appreciated that. It was a pretty well written piece that had no hint of any of the conspiracy nonsense. I also appreciated one small section:
The total number of victims killed at the World Trade Center site is 2,750. Forty were killed in Pennsylvania and 184 died at the Pentagon. Those numbers do not include the 19 hijackers.
There is nothing more disgusting than when casualty numbers include the hijackers. My kudos to CNN for leaving these murderous losers out.

Michelle Malkin has an excellent tribute consisting of pictures and video. She also has a picture of an Arabic phrase that means "I Will Not Submit". While there are many here in the US and abroad in Europe who seem willing to fall under the dominance of Sharia law, there are many of us who will resist such a takeover to the end.

The Blond Sagacity Blog's tribute makes the claim that "Six Years Later We Have Forgotten and Haven't Learned a Thing". Sad words, but true for many; especially those who want to put their politics above national security and national interests. There is a rundown of terrorist attacks from the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran to the London bomb attacks of 2005.

Finally, my blog friend LASunsett shows that a tribute can be simple and still do the job.

I remember where I was when the second plane hit and realized it was no accident. I remember the exact position in the building where I work when I saw the first tower collapse. They had set up a few TV's in various places and were showing coverage of the attacks. As more news kept coming in of the Pentagon attack and the downing of United Flight 93, the day became solidly ingrained in my mind. I normally hear and see 3 to 4 airplanes flying by as I walk from my office building to my car. I remember the silence of the skies for weeks afterward when they stopped all air traffic. I regret that I did not go to see Ground Zero when I had a chance to do so. I will never forget and as Michelle says, I will never submit.

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 10, 2007

Only Soldiers Who Lean Left Worthy of Trust By Dems

Soldiers that tow the party line are automatically granted full respect, moral authority and unquestioned loyalty by the Dems. These are examples of such obeisance to certain military men.

All three of them opportunists willing to trash their country and the military they once served in for political gain. Their service and their medals are pointed to by the left as they swoon over every anti-Bush tirade. Yet, give the left a military man with impeccable credentials that says something they disagree with and suddenly they are not so respectful.

Give the Dems a man like General Petraeus, who has such a sterling reputation that he was unanimously voted by the Senate to become General. Although there were 19 no-votes, nobody voted against his confirmation. He appears in a highly decorated uniform before a joint Congressional committee today to give his assessment of the situation in Iraq. Yet the Dems undercut his report before he even opened his mouth, and shamefully branded him a liar during the report.

It is hoped that most people will be able to see through this farce by the Dems and recognize they are delusional and willfully ignoring reality. They are so invested in defeat in Iraq, that they cannot admit to even the slightest progress. Here, General Petraeus declared significant progress and the Dems resort to their usual clownish actions. They do not LIKE what he has to say, so they reject it. Wouldn't it be nice to simply reject reality in a similar manner when it comes to bills, taxes or a parking ticket. Simply declare it is not so and poof! it goes away. So while the Dems live in their fantasy world, the thinking public sees them for what they are. They have been bought and paid for by the anti-war left, and they must do their bidding.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, September 09, 2007

The Massive Problem of Domestic Terrorism

Tuesday will mark the 6th anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the downing of United Flight 93. We have spent hours of coverage on this attack, and subsequent attacks in other countries, thwarted attacks here and abroad. We spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan in a response to 9/11. We have spent billions of dollars in Iraq to prevent another 9/11. We have created a Department of Homeland Security and tightened security measures in many areas of our lives.

International terrorism is a real threat and I support all the efforts to address the problem. However, there are terrorist activities happening all of the time here in America that are not being fully dealt with. The activities of men and women all over the country fall into various categories that I would label as Domestic Terrorism.

- Child Sexual Abuse
There are thousands of child victims of sexual abuse. Children are sexually abused by parents, grandparents or other relatives. They are abused by friends and acquaintances of their parents. They are abused by other children that are older or bigger. They are abused by neighbors, teachers and child care workers. Finally, there are random acts by strangers on the prowl for victims. According to this website:
  • 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
  • 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
  • 1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
  • Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
  • An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.
- Adult Rape and Sexual Assault
Many adults, mostly women, have suffered the terror and humiliation of a rape or sexual assault. As in the case of children, most rape or sexual assault of adults comes at the hands of somebody the victim knows. According to this website:
  • Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.
  • One in six American women are victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men.
  • In 2004-2005, there were an average annual 200,780 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
  • About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30.
  • Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has fallen by over 69%
The last point is going in the right direction but there are still far too many victims.

- Domestic Violence
God made men and women differently. He made the man strong in order to protect his family. God made the woman to be a crowning jewel of beauty as a wife and a soft and gentle role as a mother. When the strength of man is misused against those who are weaker, it is truly disgusting. Men use their strength to physically abuse their wives, girlfriends, children and other relatives. Some claims by regarding domestic violence are:
• Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse,boyfriend, or girlfriend per year1 to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.
• Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.
• Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.
• Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.
• In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.
- Murder
Any of the violence described above can often escalate into murder. Motives for premeditated murder abound: theft, revenge, bigotry, etc. shows a high number of 18,000 murders happening in 1997 alone (though it does not specify, the assumption is that these are all in the US.

All of the different forms of Domestic Terrorism combine to show that the problem is as serious as organized International Terrorism. The saddest part of this is the weak response we devote to solving the problem. There are many government agencies and departments combined with billions of dollars devoted to addressing these issues, yet when it comes time to meet out justice we often fall short. We do not have strong enough laws and firm enough punishments to protect our women and children from these brutal actions. Justice can often be a revolving door, where repeat offenders are returned to society multiple times. The lives of many are lost or ruined because so many of these monsters are let back on the street to claim more victims.

We need to strengthen our resolve when it comes to Domestic Terrorism. A victim of brutality, sexual assault or murder does not care if they suffer at the hands of a radical Muslim or from the pervert next door. The problems can only be addressed when we take the situation seriously.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Another Step Toward the Extinction of the RINO

RINO Chuck Hagel has announced he is retiring from the Senate when his term ends. Also, he will not be running for President. So another RINO (Republican In Name Only) goes off the scene. We can only hope this trend continues and the RINO becomes extinct in our lifetime. We recently lost Mayor Bloomberg and Lincoln Chafee. A few more RINO's expected to be leaving the herd in the next few years are: John McCain, Arlen Specter, John Warner and (hopefully by being voted out) Lindsay Graham.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Chuck.

Labels: ,

Friday, September 07, 2007

He That is Glad at Calamities of Another Shall Not be Unpunished

Basically the theme of this verse from Proverbs (17:5) is that "what goes around comes around". To see someone else have something bad happen to them and feel good about it, especially to the point of laughing about it is a recipe for the boomerang to come back and clip you.

Some time back President Bush was pictured riding and falling off a Segway. There was quite a lot of mirth around that. At the time Piers Morgan (who now is a Simon Cowell wannabe) had a hay day in the Daily Mirror running the headline:
"You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you Mr. President."
He has now fallen off of a Segway and cracked three ribs. Must have been pretty embarrassing to fall into the trap of his own words. Ever get the feeling that Someone is looking out for Dubya? It is hard to believe some of this is coincidental.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Help Save Lives From Massacre

Captain Ed at Captains Quarters Blog has petition you can sign that he will be packaging and sending to Congress. Go to this link and scroll down below the Day by Day Cartoon to get to the petition. The main statement of the petition reads:
We, the undersigned, call on our national leaders and fellow citizens to resist calls for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and to support America's troops under the new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, as they implement a bold new strategy designed to bring a successful completion to their mission.
Don't wait for a pollster to call you to get your opinion. You are probably not on their list anyway. By signing this petition you may be helping to save thousands of lives. As we saw from the premature pullout from Vietnam, our premature departure from Iraq would leave nobody to protect the innocent people from the power struggle that would assuredly occur.

By staying in Iraq until the country is able for us to leave, we send a strong message that the United States finishes what it starts. There is nothing like a sign of weakness that makes terrorists feel like they have been given a blank check to do whatever they want. The wavering and undercutting of this effort for political gain is weakness enough. A premature withdrawal would be disaster.

Make sure you go and sign the petition today. For those that disagree and do not want to sign it, there should be a second petition. This one would state:

We the undersigned don't care how many thousands get slaughtered in Iraq if we leave; we should just get out. The only thousands of slaughtered innocents we care about are in Darfur. These are the only people that we can legitimately care for because just like Kosovo, Darfur has no oil. Yes, we are just fine with the Democrats owning the American defeat and the slaughter that would follow.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Climate Change Tower of Pisa

There are several reasons I hope to live a long time. I want to see as much of my kid's and grandkid's (not here yet) lives as possible. I want to have more time with the love of my life Olive Oyl (alias of course). I look forward to more traveling and time to read. I have always had a dream to write and publish a book, but have not had the time to write one.

After these things there is one other reason high on the list for desiring longevity. I want to live to see the Global Warming theory collapse in ruin and become the laughingstock it deserves. Climate Change (the new CYA name for Global Warming just in case the globe starts a cooling trend) is the Scientific Leaning Tower of Pisa of our times. The real Leaning Tower of Pisa leans because of its poor foundation. Climate Change is beginning to lean because it also has a poor foundation. That foundation would be the government funding of research. Mixing government funding with a politically charged theory is a recipe for flawed results.

There is a new press release on the website of Skeptic Champion Senator Inhofe that shows the tower is beginning to lean. The post quotes a blog post by Michael Asher, who in turn is providing more details on the original post by Marc Marano. A scientist might back a theory to obtain funding, or to give an opinion for the media, or for any number of reasons. However, the seem reluctant lately to stand behind Climate Change when writing a peer review. Asher states:
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

So less than half of scientists submitting peer reviews were willing to put their reputation on the line. Only 7% were willing to explicitly put their reputation on the line. A similar number (6%) were willing to explicitly reject it. The rest are implicit support or neutral. Note that the original assessment by Orekses on the peer reviews between 1993 and 2003 and this new assessment on the peer reviews between 2004 and 2007 only get to question #2 of my five questions (see below). Any consensus on man's contribution to warming that might have existed before seems to be on shaky ground these days. I have made the point before that there is no consensus on the extent of catastrophe (if any) to be caused by Climate Change. Throwing out consensus is a shell game used by frauds like Al Gore to stiff-arm any real debate on the matter.

While 3 years of reviews compared to 10 years of reviews may not yet be solid evidence of a shift, my opinion is that scientists are beginning to see the very real possibility of becoming a future laughingstock. While a scientist may want to enjoy public praise today, they want to make a mark that will outlive them. Ridicule is not the kind of mark they have in mind, either. Their tower is starting to lean. There is a fascinating story here about the extravagant steps taken to keep the real Tower of Pisa from collapsing. Look for similar extreme measures to be taken by the liberal camp to save Climate Change from disaster.

As always with posts on climate change, here are my five questions we need to answer before succumbing to Climate Change Alarmism:
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?

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 03, 2007

What Comes First the Chicken or the Egg?

Life is full of chicken and egg questions and problems. Where I work I face problems all the time that I describe as chicken and egg problems. There is a problem to fix, but in order to solve it I need the problem fixed. Follow that? Sorry, my nondisclosure won't let me provide any examples.

There is a quote by actress Jodie Foster that made me think of the chicken and egg analogy. As we all know Hollywood is full of those who want to influence the world with their liberal philosophy. When making their statements, they often reveal that there is not much brain power between their ears. Usually, I see a link between those who make these ridiculous and a career on the wane. The question is "Do the stupid political statements kill their career, or do they represent a dying career?" Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do actors and actresses come out with strong (and often silly) political statements only to damage their careers? Or do actors and actresses that already have dying careers come out and make the idiotic statements in a desperate attempt to feel they are still influential?

Newsbusters has a post on some statements by Jodie Foster that completely defy the intelligent image she has carefully developed over the years. Foster is one year older than me, so I grew up seeing her teenage career along with quite a number of other childhood stars. She defied the odds and made the leap to having a successful adult career. She continues to make movies and I think she is quite talented. I hated her in Anna and the King, but she did an excellent job in Flightplan. I don't think she has been making a big splash at the box office, though. Other telltale signs her career is not as bright as desired are seeing her on the cover of multiple magazines lately. While sometimes that might signal a strong career, often it shows a desperate willingness to boost oneself in the public eye.

The statements Jodie Foster made were about guns. In her new movie, The Brave One, Foster totes a gun to get revenge on some bad guys that kill her fiance. Foster is actually offended at the notion of movie goers cheering when she gets her revenge. She calls such people "unsophisticated" and links them to true louts that cheered during the rape scene of the movie The Accused. If that was not enough to alienate a potential audience, Foster goes on to talk against legitimate gun ownership by stating:
I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.
Notice the target group she singles out to be excluded from guns: thinking, feeling breathing human beings. There is no attempt to exclude the non-thinking, or the non-feeling. Again, the liberal position on guns is exposed for its folly: take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

In the same interview, Foster takes a swipe at "Christians" as being to blame for the delay in releasing the Dakota Fanning movie, Hounddog, because of a very graphic rape scene with a very young actress. As if Christians are the only group that think this kind of scene crosses an important social boundary. Let's see, liberals are fine for expelling a child from school for drawing a picture of a gun; but Christians are extreme because they think filming a pre-teen girl getting violently raped is going too far. However, Newsbusters lists three significant secular entities that voiced opposition to this scene. The suck-up of Hollywood to radical Muslims and swipes at Christians continues.

To be clear, Hollywood has a right to say all the stupid / liberal statements they want. My point is not to censor them, but to reveal the vast emptiness in their collective brains. The culture of huge fame and success combined with continuous social gatherings and peer scrutiny has led to a cookie cutter society where only one line of thinking is acceptable. The successful and smart ones keep it to themselves, while those who have a career death wish decide it is time to become an activist. Good luck Jodie. You defied the odds transitioning from young to mature actress; you may beat this one too. My money is against you.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, September 02, 2007

There's No Need to Fear Underdog is Here

Last night I went to see Underdog with Olive and Chip. I realize critic purists are going to highly blanch at my positive review of Underdog after so soundly thrashing Raging Bull. Sorry, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Underdog was a truly wonderful experience from beginning to end. My mouth is a little stiff today from sitting through the entire movie with a stupid grin on my face.

First, let me take a timeout for a little disclaimer. I have a beagle and used to have two beagles before we lost the older, Molly, one last year. The dog who played in this movie looked very much like Molly. Second, I was a big fan of the Underdog cartoon in my youth. Third, the boy in the movie who is a little tough but later develops a soft spot for "Shoeshine / Underdog" reminded me very much of Chip. Chip is one tough cookie as a teenager, but he really has a soft spot for animals and even people who have problems. So these factors may have caused me to like the movie more than warranted.

I am not normally a fan of these movies that have the dogs and cats mouths moving. This one was done especially well. The bad guy - Barsinister is a bit campy, but he actually did very well at the obvious goal of mimicking the old cartoon character. The movie and dialog was very entertaining and the Underdog scenes were extremely well done. I am hoping there will be a sequel.

Labels: ,

Criminal Movie Critique of Raging Bull

Some time back Entertainment Weekly posted their list of the top 100 best movies of all time. I had seen many of them. I thought many of them belonged. There were a few at the top I had never seen, kept hearing good things about and thought it was time to see. I borrowed the Godfather series from my brother and my wife and I watched them all in amazement that we had gone all this time and not seen them. Definite candidates for the list, even justifiable to be at the top. I went to the library and found Citizen Kane. I always liked Orson Wells and agreed that this was a definite classic.

Recently, Raging Bull appeared in the "On Demand" list of free movies. I saw it was about a boxer and remembered it was high on the list so we sat down to watch it. I must clearly say that I have rarely seen anything so utterly bad. I did like the fight scenes, but when it came to the life of the lead character it was simply juvenile. The dialog was talentless and the time sequences were choppy. It was completely painful to watch and in the end, there was no payoff for having gone through the exercise. I could not have felt more empty if I had instead spent 2 hours staring at a white wall.

Entertainment Weekly has this film as #5 best of all time. The American Film Institute lists Raging Bull #4 best of American movies. Roger Ebert lists it as the best film of all time dealing with the theme of jealousy calling it the "Othello" of our times. I can only respond to this criminal movie critique by placing my head in my hands.

My question to the readers is "where am I missing the boat here?" Perhaps you have seen the movie and also think it is great. Please enlighten me. I cannot for the life of me come to any other conclusion than that the movie was written by a junior high school student. The acting and filming were pretty good, but resting on a worthless foundation.

Labels: ,

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Deviant Words in Posts Key to Hits

I have had quite a number of hits all week. Are people coming to my blog to read my views or looking for a Logic Lifeline? No. Most of the hits are from people doing Google searches for "Bathroom Signals". I wonder how many are searching as voyeurs to learn about the deviant lifestyles of others and how many are coming here wanting to know what the signals are so they can put them to use. Sorry, no "how to" lessons here. You are on your own. I know Malott stated once how he put some word in his post and the hits came rolling in. I could think of a few things to post on that would result in a wave of hits. That's not the kind of hits I am looking for.

Labels: , , , ,