The Vent Pipe

Enough

2007-02-02T22:50:00.000-05:00

LEAVING: New URL: www.ventpipe.wordpress.com

I've had enough.

Blogging has been few and far between in the past two weeks. Lack of news? Nah. Lack of drive? Nah. Lack of time? Well that has entered the equation.

The real reason, though, is because of shitty (sorry, that's the best way to put it) service from Blog*Spot's "NEW Blogger." I upgraded while it was still in Beta, but I swear it's been worse since it came out...

This week alone I have been:

Locked out of dashboard 3 times
Devoid of a blog at all (that is, typing in the URL resulted in an error) 2 times.
Bored while waiting for the dashboard to load: ever time I tried to use the thing

And so with a history of frustration and a bad taste in my mouth, I leave Blogger for Wordpres instead. The new URL will be www.ventpipe.wordpress.com I would greatly appreciate it if any regular reader would PLEASE bookmark the NEW address, and feel free to describe to the RSS Feed as well! After all that's what it's there for.

One final thought...does ANYBODY know how to import TO Wordpress.com FROM New Blogger? I've read about 100 posts on forums at Wordpress, but that's mainly for WordPress.org...

Thanks!

'Cuz it's "hip"

2007-01-30T21:25:00.001-05:00

David Bell's LA Times piece is yet another example of the pontifications of somebody who just doesn't quite get this whole "war on terror" thing. Via Patterico:

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers
and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks
on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that
six hours after that,there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks hadcontinued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20
million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union
suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help
put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during
the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the
attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief
that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time
simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history
provide any insight?

[...]

The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who
would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is
not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can
certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite
different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United
States.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Bell completely misses the point of the War on Terror. He quite accurately assess the situation in stating that, "desire is not the same thing as capacity..." but he misses the connection. Let us examine this further.

The Islamists that want us dead truly do desire our extinction. They don't simply hate us--the people. They don't hate John because he's John or Teressa because she's Teressa. They hate America because it is America: free, equal, (mostly) Judao-Christian oriented, the land of prosperity and opportunity. This is what they hate. Their desire is not to kill a few people, but to destroy the way of life we call American.

But this is more than simply desiring something. I desire a large house, a nice car and the financial freedom to do whatever the hell I want. While surely I work hard to achieve these things, there are certain things that are off the table in my "desire" to achieve these things: I would not steal. I would not murder. I would not bring any harm to others. I would not cheat or do anything to compromise my family, myself or my values. For the Islamist fundamentalist, this restraint does not exist. In the case of those who wish us to be destroyed, for our way of life to eternally parish, they will stop at nothing. Not only would they murder and destroy as a last resort, they would do this as a primary resort. Their mindset is this: achieve our goal at any cost and with any means necessary.

This brings us to capacity. Bell believes the fundamentalists lack the capacity to do real or significant harm. There are a few problems with this view. Firstly, the extent of harm done cannot be measured simply in how many deaths have been accrued. Instead, there are certain other indicators, both measurable and immeasurable, that must be considered. Did the attack do damage to financial institutions? (Think Twin Towers) Did the attack strike a blow against the morale of the enemy? (Say, by striking the heart of the American Armed Forces in hitting the Pentagon.) What symbolism can be drawn from the attacks. (While they were unsuccessful in destroying the White House or Capital, and the fact that the likelihood that even if they had hit the White House of the Capitol they would have killed any "major players," such an attack would have been a symbolic blow to the US).

Secondly, and most significantly, we have to consider the fact that such extremists not only desire our destruction, but they desire the means (capacity) to bring about that destruction. And so we find ourselves in Iraq, wherein we hoped to prevent such monsters as Osama bin Laden from acquiring WMD's which would thus give them the capacity to do large, wide-scale destruction.

The fact that Bell leaves these arguments out of his piece makes me suspicious. I'm no genius (in fact, I can't even spell the word as the Spell Check tool as just underlined it in red...), but even I can see that these are the most basic flaws in Bell's piece. To me, the possibility that Bell was aiming to cause a stink and get some attention must at least be considered. In a time when it has become "hip" to think that 9/11 was a vast government conspiracy which was allowed to go forth (or perhaps even carried out) by our leadership in order to build the ground on which to launch "wars of aggression" in the Middle East, I think it's at least possible that some--Bell included--might just see this as a means to achieve a few minutes in the national spotlight...

Technorati Tags: War on Terror

Hallmarks of a Democrat

2007-01-29T08:38:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton visited Iowa this weekend, causing a big stink in her wake. Video of the most talked about portion of her town-hall style meeting can be seen at HotAir. Yahoo also reports:

Clinton held a town hall-style forum attended by about 300 activists, giving a brief speech before taking questions for nearly an hour. Pressed to defend her vote to authorize force in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, Clinton responded by stepping up her criticism of Bush.

"I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."
[...]
One questioner asked Clinton if her track record showed she could stand up to "evil men" around the world.
"The question is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men," Clinton said. She paused to gaze while the audience interrupted with about 30 seconds of laughter and applause.
Meeting later with reporters, she was pressed repeatedly to explain what she meant. She insisted it was a simple joke.
"I thought I was funny," Clinton said. "You guys keep telling me to lighten up, be funny. I get a little funny and now I'm being psychoanalyzed."
She told reporters that evil men included al-Qaida leader
Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. "Isn't it about time we get serious about that?" she said.
[...]

"The height of irresponsibility," spokesman Rob Saliterman said, "would be to cap our troop numbers at an arbitrary figure and to cut off their funding."
Clinton does not support cutting funding for American troops, but does favor that step for Iraqi forces if the Baghdad government fails to meet certain conditions.
Clinton defended the role that Congress has played, saying newly empowered Democrats are beginning to build pressure on Bush to act, but the public needs to be patient.
"We are at the beginning of a process," Clinton said. "It's a frustrating process, our system is sometimes frustrating."

My, oh my. Hillary hit all the major hallmarks of what it takes (at least since the '04 General Election) to be a presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, didn't she?

Emulating her favorite fellow senator John Kerr, she botched a bad joke (or, if she didn't botch a bad joke, she was read as having attempted a bad joke).
She turned a very serious--in my opinion the single most serious and important--issue into a laughing matter. After all, it is the President's single most awesome responsibility to protect the United States from "evil and bad men" and Clinton turned it into a joke--whether about Republicans, Ken Starr or her husband. This sort of joking is something we should have gotten used to by now, though.
Flip-flopper. "I was being serious." "I thought I was funny..." Can she have it both ways? Can she be serious and be funny? No. I don't think so.

Beyond the above outline idiocy, Clinton illustrated yet another contradiction in her views on the war. Consider this: Senator Clinton does not support Bush's troop increase. She does not support a new strategy in Iraq. She wants to "cap" troop numbers and funding at their current levels (thus maintaining the status quo), yet she has the audacity to say this:

"We are at the beginning of a process [...] It's a frustrating process, our system is sometimes frustrating"

Clinton defended the role that Congress has played, saying newly empowered Democrats are beginning to build pressure on Bush to act, but the public needs to be patient.

Certain members of the Congress need to heed this advice: be patient. Bush has acted. That's the reality. He has changed leaders and strategy and initial reports seem to suggest some measure of success.

Hillary says, "Isn't it about time we get serious about [the War on Terror]?"

Yes, it is. It is time that you--Democrats--get serious about the War on Terror. You don't like the Bush policy. Fine. I myself am not convinced it will work. But at the moment it's the best we've got. So either get serious and provide an alternate plan, or shut the hell up.

Technorati Tags: War on Terror, Iraq, Bush, 2008 Election

More on real foods

2007-01-28T19:46:00.000-05:00

From The New York Times via Instapundit:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy.

[...]

A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

The advice and science seems so simple, yet so logical. It wasn't that long ago that our ancestors were in much better overall health (even without the benefits of modern medicine) meaning that some development of recent time must be responsible for the shift towards obesity, cancer and diabetes, all of which are controlled, again, by the miracle of modern medicine.

At the beginning of January, I posted a review of Nina Planck's book Real Foods, in which Planck explains the importance of eating real food. In case you forgot, here's a snippet from Planck's site:

Don't you find it odd that the experts blame butter and beef for heart disease, even though heart disease as we know it has only been around since 1912, and we've been eating butter for 30,000 years and beef for 3 million?

Don't you find it funny that the foods in all traditional diets - starting with breast milk - are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol, yet people who eat these traditional foods liberally don't get heart disease? Nor are they fat or diabetic.

The experts are mistaken. The so-called diseases of civilization - obesity, diabetes, and heart disease - are not caused by real food. The diseases of industrialization - as I call them - are caused by the foods of industrialization.

What are industrial foods? In the triple epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, the three main villains are trans fats, corn oil, and sugar - not butter and eggs.

In Real Food: What to Eat and Why, I explain why traditional foods such as butter are healthy and industrial foods are not. You'll learn how butter, lard, beef, cheese, eggs, and other foods we've been eating for thousands of years got a bad rap - and why it's a bad rap.

Now I am no purists. While I try to eat mostly organic products, lots of veggies, lean meat and dairy along with some whole grains (mostly wheat bread, organic oatmeal and bran or wheat cereal), I still find myself eating food that contains forbidden products (particularly HFCS). One thing I have noticed, though, is that the more I eat real foods, the less I enjoy eating highly processed foods, artificially sweetened foods. In particular, I can no longer even stomach the taste of white bread. The taste and texture simply make me gag. Sweetened cereal on the other hand--particularly PB Crunch--is another story.

Still, the more I read about the "real foods approach," the more it makes sense, and the harder I try to stick to a mostly real-foods diet. I think these folks are on to something...

Technorati Tags: Food, Nutrition, Dieting

Who's it gonna be?

2007-01-26T08:19:00.001-05:00

Even though we have over a year and a half before the 2008 election, it's quite clear that we are simply going to be flooded with hypothetical situations, polls and speculation about who will emerge as the two '08 contenders. Let us, for today's sake (and because of the fact that of those who have declared their intent to run for the Republican nomination, I don't care for any of them more than the other) focus on the Dems.

A new Time poll shows Hillary has a sizable advantage:

Despite the buzz generated by Senator Barack Obama entering the race,
the survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic
nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%.

All the talk about Obama and he still trails by 19 points? It's not look good for a man who is being played up as the new Chosen One. When coupled with this story for CBS which suggests that "many black voters dont' identify with Obama," I can't help but doubt any speculation that he has a real chance of beating Hillary. According to the CBS report:

As CBS 2 political editor Mike Flannery reports, Obama faced questions
about it as he met with a one-time street preacher from New York who's
run for president himself – Rev. Al Sharpton.

Sharpton made
clear that he does plan to keep putting pressure on Barack Obama and
Obama's about-to-be-launched campaign for president. Sharpton
complained publicly that none of the presidential candidates, including
Obama, has worked for what Sharpton called an "urban agenda."

This seems to play into that ideology which is often used to discredit Colin Powell or Condi Rice's contributions to the black community: you just ain't black enough. What does that mean anyway? State Senate President Emil Jones attempts to answer this:

"It does not mean that you have to be on welfare in order to represent
the African-American community," said State Senate President Emil
Jones. "The mere fact that he's a U.S. Senator, the mere fact that he's
a credible candidate running for President, does more for our children
and grand-children than all of them combined."

"Saying you're not black enough is an attempt to discredit him among black voters," said Professor Timuel Black.

That answer still isn't enough for me, but we'll come back to examine that another time...

It seems to be that at the end of the day (unless somebody else declares their intent to run) Senator Clinton has a much better chance to emerge than Obama. Why?

Clinton is such a polarizing force--you either really love her, or you really hate her. The fact is that, while there are democrats--many democrats--that hate her, the majority of Clinton-haters are on the right side of the isle. So it seems logical to me to infer that the most vehement Hillary supporters will be coming out in droves to support her.

On the other hand, Obama's inexperience adds a different element. A friend of mine discussed this last night. He sees to believe that Obama's separation from Washington politics will make him appear less corrupt, that it some how distances him from insider-influence. I see it differently. I think there are people out there (like me) who would vote against Obama because of his inexperience. We need a presidential candidate who has experience, preferably at a national level and on foreign policy issues, who can transition from their current position to the presidency without any major problems. Secondly, I have zero respect for somebody who has nothing on their resume. In other words, Hillary, like her or hate her, has an extensive resume of political positions and public service. Obama? Not so much.

So that's my spin on the democrat primary situation. Please use the comment section and tell me who you see as coming ahead...

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election

A Poetic Truth

2007-01-25T18:22:00.001-05:00

A friend of mine showed me this poem on taxes:

Tax his land,

Tax his wage,

Tax his bed in which he lays.

Tax his tractor,

Tax his mule,

Teach him taxes is the rule.

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,

Tax his shirts,

Tax his work,

Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his booze,

Tax his beers,

If he cries,

Tax his tears.

Tax his bills,

Tax his gas,

Tax his notes,

Tax his cash.

Tax him good and let him know

That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers,

Tax him more,

Tax him until he's good and sore.

Tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in which he lays.

Put these words upon his tomb,

"Taxes drove me to my doom!"

And when he's gone,

We won't relax,

We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!!

A kind of shocking look at the sad state of our tax system. Don't think it's that bad? Below this clever poem was a partial list of some of the taxes that exist:

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CDL License Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),

IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),

Liquor Tax,

Luxury Tax,

Marriage License Tax,

Medicare Tax,

Property Tax,

Real Estate Tax,

Service charge taxes,

Social Security Tax,

Road Usage Tax (Truckers),

Sales Taxes,

Recreational Vehicle Tax,

School Tax,

State Income Tax,

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),

Telephone Federal Excise Tax,

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,

Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,

Telephone State and Local Tax,

Telephone Usage Charge Tax,

Utility Tax,

Vehicle License Registration Tax,

Vehicle Sales Tax,

Watercraft Registration Tax,

Well Permit Tax,

Workers Compensation Tax.

One person noted that this country still had relative prosperity around 100 years ago, though none of these taxes existed...

Technorati Tags: Taxes

It's just too simplistic

2007-01-23T10:07:00.001-05:00

Jules Crittenden has written the speech he thinks President Bush should deliever tonight. Somehow, I doubt things will be delivered as simplistic as Crittenden has advocated, even as prudent and correct as such action would be. Some highlights:

Don’t bother standing up or clapping, any of you. I already know who won the election, and I know how you feel.
I come before you tonight not to make amends, not to make it good, curry any favor or find any middle ground.

[...]

So what is the best thing I can do tonight? I can tell you the
truth. What none of you want to hear. What you’ve been stopping your
ears to. The ugly truth.
The State of the Union is a disaster. I did my best, but I made mistakes, and my best wasn’t good enough.
We went to war without building up our army, and now, I am trying to make up for that.
But that is not the disaster.
The disaster is that you, Congress and the American people, do not care to fight.

[...]

ou didn’t like it when I talked about evil. Sounded too simple, too uncompromising, too moralistic. Too … biblical.

I don’t know what else you call people who fly passenger jets into
office buildings; who rape women in front of their husbands and
children, and execute their opponents in acid baths; who seek to spread
tyrannical and archaic religious regimes that enslave women and stifle
fundamental freedoms. Who want to dominate the world’s primary oil
fields with nuclear weapons.
I call it evil. Works for me.

[...]

I will engage evil directly where I find it, in Iraq and in Iran.
With an aggressive and ruthless new strategy and a plan to build our
army as we should have a long time ago, I will show the American people
that we can fight and we can win. I expect that the American people,
though misled by their press and many of their elected representatives,
will see results and will get it. Because the American people are a
people who in the end don’t give up, don’t stop fighting, refuse to
lose, and will choose to win. I have faith in them.
Oh, there’s another one of those words you don’t like.
A nation that is not willing to fight for what it believes in, for
its place in the world, is not worthy of its own ideals. But that is
not America. I now intend to help America restore its faith in itself.
By fighting this necessary fight that we cannot afford to lose.

Well said indeed. I have always stood by the President's use of the word "evil" to describe the Islamists extremists that want to murder us. Though I wasn't there, I fully understand and accept Reagan's labeling of the USSR as "the Evil Empire." Unless we call it what it is, we will never overcome the dark forces that are controlling the actions of our enemies.

More important than continuing the discussion of the evil we face, though, is the will to face it. The President can explain that we face evil, but knowledge of such evil is only half the battle. Here is where the president must shine. He must, as Crittenden as stated, explain that he is not here to discuss middle ground or compromises. He is not going to be a lame duck. He must continue to battle this evil with ruthless determination. The State of the Union depends on it. The state of Freedom depends on it.

Technorati Tags: Bush, War on Terror

Pro-choice? Not anymore. Let's call it what it really is: Pro-Abortion.

2007-01-22T23:37:00.001-05:00

I was just getting ready for bed on as the hours of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade come to an end when I decided to clear out the ole newsreader before turning out the lights (it's been a busy day, though my morning class was canceled, and so I have not had the time to sit and read the news...) when I stopped on a truly remarkable post from Sister Toldjah on abortion. It is simply too good not to read. Here are a few short excerpts but please, PLEASE, regardless of your stance on abortion, take five or so minutes to really read this:

The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.

[...]

The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life - a human life - where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.

[...]

The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life - specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life - they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued funding for state-sponsored abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system.

[...]

Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not - I repeat - not responsible to routinely engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website.

/>

Probably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because everyone single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’

President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.

There is much, much more on her site. Please read it.

I started to read the David Kupelian book "The Marketing of Evil" before Christmas. I didn't finish becuase a lot of it seemed a little over the top to me. However, one thing that did stand out was the very first chapter in which he addressed the way gay right's activists used marketing ploys to frame the debate in a way that forced the opposition (traditionalists who opposed gay marriage) into a corner. They made it an issue about gay "rights" rather than gay privelages. They force fed us bad science on genetics without accepting any debate on the role of choice in the matter and so on and so forth. It occurs to me after having read Sister Toldja's post that we have been victims of the same thing with abortion: they have framed it as a matter of personal choice, a matter of privacy and a matter of individual rights not being trumped by the government. Yet, as she notes, they have left off their own call for government in sex through sex education and through access to clinics run on government funding etc. etc. She also reminds us that they have phrased their position such that we now call those who support abortoin "pro-choice" (who doens't like choice) rather than pro-abortion. Well not anymore. I will personally no longer use the term "pro-choice." Instead I will say "pro-abortion," because that's what they are. They are supporting an institution which murders millions of children each and everyday. It's disgusting.

Technorati Tags: Abortion, Liberalism

National Pride? Not until after midnight...

2007-01-21T20:15:00.000-05:00

From the Herald Sun via Common Sense and Wonder:

Organisers of the Aussie rock festival at Homebush will confiscate any flag or bandana bearing the national symbol at the gate.

Labelling Sydney a hot bed of racism, producers of the Sydney Showground event said it will be the only city in the nationwide event to be subject to the draconian action.

Promoters have already moved the event from the traditional Australia Day gig to a day earlier to avoid nationalistic overtones.

Spooked by last year’s event, which came only weeks after the Cronulla riots, organisers will outlaw flags being brandished as a “gang colour”.

Prime Minister John Howard said the Big Day Out should be cancelled unless organisers reversed their decision to ban the flag. Big Day Out patrons were intimidated and harassed at the Sydney event on Australia Day 2006 by bigoted fans brandishing flags and demanding people pledge their allegiance.

[...]

“I am telling people not to bring flags - they are free to get them out at midnight on their way home when it is Australia Day.”

Wanna be frightened? Read the whole thing!

It's funny. I somehow doubt that Urban-Outfitter garb, which has gained much publicity through LGF in recent weeks, would be included on the list of unacceptable clothing.

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Multiculturalism
powered by performancing firefox

The first presidential candidate...

2007-01-21T18:36:00.001-05:00

Hehe. Thoughts on a candidate field filled with firsts from Don Surber:

ABC News reported Bill Richardson is running for president. He becomes the first major Hispanic presidential candidate.

He follows Hillary, the first ex-first lady presidential candidate.

Who followed Barack Obama, the first Muslim-fathered presidential candidate.

Who followed Biden, the first hair-plugged presidential candidate.

Who followed Kucinich, the first elfin presidential candidate.

Who followed McCain, the first ex-POW presidential candidate.

Who followed Mitt Romney, the first Mormon presidential candidate since his brain-washed daddy.

And so on and so on.

Can’t we just have a presidential candidate who does not front for some minority group, real or imaginary? You know, someone who runs on qualifications based on something other than chromosome or pigmentation or genetic code.

I think Surber makes a good point. Wanna know something else I'm tired of? Using the word "historic" to describe everything. "It was a historic day on Capitol Hill today as Nancy Pelosi became the first female speaker." Not convnced? Think that really deserves to be described as historic? How about this? "Obama's presidential bid is one of a historic nature?" Oh, that's true because he's, what, black? Muslim (though he doesn't openly embrace this)? Why is that historic? How about this one, uttered this morning on Fox News Sunday: "Hillary Clinton kicked off her historical campaign for the Presidency..."

Now by their very definitions (the fact that they are happening) all of these events are historical so why we have to constantly preface things such as these with the term "historic" or "historical" is beyond me. Does anybody out there have an answer?

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election

Mark Steyn on the new Iraq poll...

2007-01-21T09:49:00.001-05:00

Mark Steyn's new column is up in the Chicago Sun Times. He addresses Obama, the new Iraq plan (and the lack of support for it) and poll numbers on whether Americans want their own troops to win. Some excerpts:

"Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?"

And here's how the American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15 percent said they didn't know.
Let me see if I understand that. For four years, regardless of this or
that position on the merits of the war, almost everybody has claimed to
"support our troops.'' Some of us have always thought that ''supporting
the troops'' while not supporting them in their mission is not entirely
credible. But here we have 37 percent of the American people actually
urging defeat on them. They ''support our troops'' by wanting them to
lose. This isn't a question about whether you think the plan will work,
but whether you want
it to work. And nearly 40 percent of respondents either don't know or
are actively rooting for failure. Which is to say: more dead American
troops and more dead Iraqi civilians. Asked whether they want the surge
to succeed, 34 percent of Democrats answered ''No,'' and so did 19
percent of independents and 11 percent of Republicans. What were the
numbers like for D-Day?

/>Hmm. A fairly daunting statistic, no?

Technorati Tags: War on Terror, Iraq

Fred on the Senate's Iraq Position

2007-01-20T15:11:00.001-05:00

Fred Thompson brings up a good point at the NRO:

What I can’t see is this nonbinding resolution of opposition. Is it
really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they
probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional
determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution
further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers
are preparing to go into battle? And finally, regardless of our
politics is this the time to announce to the world that our president
is “on his own”?

Well said. Like I said before, maybe the GOP really should consider Fred a viable option for Presidential bid.

Oh good grief

2007-01-19T08:35:00.001-05:00

Leave it to the California legislature:

The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs
impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their
children?
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw
spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would
become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from
smacking their kids.
Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for
some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best
-- but Lieber begs to differ.
``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years
old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a
6-month-old or a newborn?''

[...]

Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe
limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions
over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some
legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny
government.''
``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who
said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has
no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we
should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30
minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same
lines.''

[...]

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal
expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said
that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the
United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden
was the first, in 1979.

I should have expected that this would have ties to some European standard. There was a time after the Revolution when the United States--especially in the arts, literature and music--attempted to differienate itself from Great Britain and continental Europe. Now, though, liberals from New England and California think it's "hip" and important to "be like Europe." Well I don't want to be like Europe. I want to be like America. And I don't want the government--state, local, federal or international through the United Nations--tell me how I must discipline and raise my children when the time comes. Maybe I'm the only one?

Technorati Tags: State/Local Issues, Liberalism

"IN Disaster, Renewel"

2007-01-18T13:37:00.001-05:00

Instapundit hit a couple of days ago on the conference being held in DC this weekend to discuss conservative policy. NRO's Rich Lowry has more:

The Right and the Left tend to have different reactions to losing elections. The Left goes on paranoid benders. The
election was stolen! Dogs kept our voters from the polls! The voting
machines were rigged — and we have the lack of a paper trail to prove
it! At least judging by the 2006 elections, the Right instead
settles in for a healthy debate about what went wrong and what to do
about it.

[...]

The recent history of conservatism is that in disaster there is
renewal. Barry Goldwater’s shellacking in 1964 paved the way for the
conservative transformation of the Republican party. Jimmy Carter’s
1976 victory paved the way for Reagan. And Clinton paved the way for
Gingrich. Will Nancy Pelosi pave the way for something positive, and if
so, whom or what?

Now for me, that last bit is about as useful as those hockey analysts who say, "The last time it snowed on a Thursday in Wichita and it also was sunny in Seattle the Might Ducks scored two goals. So we'll see if that happens again tonight." Sometimes there just isn't a correlation. Still, the promise of something better after two years of Pelosi (as if it could get much worse) is something to grin about.

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election, Politics

Proud to be a West Virginian

2007-01-17T20:50:00.001-05:00

I am, for the most part, proud to be a West Virginian. What I am not necessarily proud of about being West Virginian is, however, our esteemed Senator Robert C. Byrd. Via Don Surber:

Bob Byrd delivered a 2,079-word speech in defense of earmarks, just in time for the end of the earmarks era. A Washington source said, “Senator Reid has agreed to negotiate with Senator Gregg about the Gregg Amendment. Hopefully there will be enough pressure to force everybody involved to allow a straight up or down vote on the earmark reform amendment.”

Just remember, Byrd delivered the last filibuster before the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. Mr. Timing.

Although I disagree with much of what Byrd has come to represent, I can usually accept his arguments a little easier because 95ish percent of the time (that's a statistic I have just made up, just for the record) he backs up his position with Constitutional justifications. I'd love to hear his reasons for rejecting the earmark reform movement that has emerged of late.

What the...

2007-01-17T16:38:00.000-05:00

*Updated

From Reuters:

President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending an law-enforcement tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

Bush has reauthorized the program every 45 days, and the current authorization is mid-cycle, a senior Justice Department official said. Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.

[...]

"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales said.

He reiterated the administration's position that the surveillance program has been legal, but said the government will now have the ability to act with sufficient "speed and agility."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the new rules approved by the court addressed administration concerns.

"The president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts," Snow said

Sometimes Bush and his administration just infuriate me. He is like the kid that you defend in school all the time. You keep defending him and defending him until you're blue in the face. And what does that kid do to pay you back? Makes you look like a fool.

For the past, what, two or so years since this story broke, those of us who want to be tough on terrorism at all costs have defended Bush's wiretapping program and his right--no, duty--as the President to use "any and all means" needed to prevent terrorist attacks. Even this one. Now, after all that has been said and done, he changes his position. If it was really that easy, why didn't he just do it to begin with. I just don't get it: Why not spare the criticism and just do what is asked from the beginning if you're simply going to cave in the end anyway? Answer me that.

* Update

Michelle Malkin says it better:

This is just...depressing.

Bush administration = Lucy. Bush administration defenders = Charlie Brown.

Argh.

Oh good

2007-01-16T13:04:00.001-05:00

*Update
*Updated Again

Just heard on Sirius Patriot's ABC News break that Obama has filed his papers for a presidential exploratory committee. Oh good.

I had a conversation today with a young woman who, in her intro to Poli Sci class, stated that she supported Obama for President. I asked why. She said, "I don't know." I said, "you realize he is basically as socialists." She said, "well I don't even know what he stands for."

What is wrong with people? This is why 'my' generation gets such a bad reputation--because we deserve it when we say we support somebody that we don't even understand...

* Update

Betsy has a few points to ponder on the "new Messiah" (where Clinton was the "old Messiah") of the Left:

It's customary for candidates announcing their run for the presidency to speak in inspiring generalities. So, when Barack Obama announced yesterday, he was full of such generalities such as,

“Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way,” Mr. Obama said, speaking in a video address sent to his supporters. “Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions.”

Okay, I'll bite. How does he plan to tackle these big problems. What are his solutions? At some point, he has to move beyond talking about a third way that bridges partisanship. And that involves more than teaming up with Republicans for earmark reform. That's a fine start, but if he votes for everything the Democrats put forward and voted against everything that Republicans and Bush put forward, how does that represent the new nonpartisanship? Is his big difference that he'll vote like a typical Democrat but just not criticize the Republicans while doing criticizing their policies? That's nice, but it isn't any sort of move into a purple America.

Eventually, platitudes will not be enough. Then we'll get a look at how Obama really is different.

Well stated as always

*Updated Again:

Via Common Sense & Wonder:

I have heard that Obama is considering choosing Sen. Byrd as his Vice Presidential running mate to balance the ticket.

Now I have not heard that, and I find it doubtful considering Byrd's age and the "polarization factor" of the 500 term senator. While looking for a source, I stumbled on this:

Senators these days, Byrd cautioned the young Illinois Democrat, become fixated on the White House.

"I remember the advice," Obama said matter-of-factly in an interview with The Associated Press last week. "The importance of senators staying in the Senate."

Apparently Obama isn't listening to Byrd...

The article has a pretty good chronology of Obama's build up to a presidential run, though it is a bit dated (Nov. 06).

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election
powered by performancing firefox

New v. Old Media

2007-01-16T07:50:00.001-05:00

West Virginia's very own Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail has a few thoughts on New Media v. Old Media and the roll of blogs and bloggers in keeping the MSM straight:

I have got a great boss who lets me do my thing here. But some of my colleagues, privately, remain skeptical of blogs because there is no editor. Bloggers can write anything, blah, blah, blah.
Glenn Reynolds the Instapundit put another nail in that canard with a post on an AP story by Jim Krane on Monday. The story said, “The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001.”
But in fact (and Instapundit cited a Wikipedia entry) the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for approval and the Senate voted 95-0 in support of the Byrd-Hagel resolution which rejected Kyoto.
Given the stonewalling over the fake Captain Jamil Hussein — Iraqis have no police captain with that name and AP will not admit it used a pseudonym as a source — AP editors have forgotten to protect their agency’s credibility. They have to work to earn it every day.
Just like the bloggers.

Well. Sorta. Obviously I side to some extent with the bloggers. I am no where in the realm of Instapundit--whom I very much admire--nor Don Surber, or Sissy Willis, or LGF, Powerline and the list continues. However, I suppose that after three + years of blogging, it would be safe to use the term "blogger" in describing me.

Unlike some of the blogger out there, and unlike news-talk Guru Rush Limbaugh, I remain confident that the so called "Main Stream Media" (MSM) has a role to play and remains an important, even if currently less relevant, institution of the United States. That isn't to say that bloggers don't have a role to play. As Surber notes, bloggers like Instapundit and LGF play an important role in correcting misstatements and out right lies published in major news outlets such as the AP.

My problem here is that some members of the blogosphere seem to suggest that because a blogger says it, as, for the most part, independent 'journalists,' it must be true. He even hints that the blogs may be a step above the MSM in the hierarchy of information diffusion. I disagree. Bloggers, myself included, may right wrongs, point out inconsistencies and biases and offer our perspectives which often time contradict those published daily in the mass media, but at the end of the day the majority of us really have no background in journalism. We rarely--aside from LGF or Michelle Malkin, who, by the way, is also a paid media member--break "new news." And so when we examine the role of bloggers from this perspective, it seems a little more clear as to why those who work in the MSM have come to resent and even to hate bloggers. I imagine it goes something like this: "How dare these blogger who have no training or formal knowledge in journalism propose to lob themselves in a group comparable to us. They are not as good as us."

Instead, I propose that we--bloggers--are not "new media" members. We are not some sort of reinvented media that strives to perfect the art of journalism. Instead, we are playing the role as the first independent MSM "watchdog groups" in performing the tasks I outlined above. From this perspective, the role of the blogger becomes more acceptable to me. This more clearly defined role should be what bloggers strive to succeed at. Maybe I'm wrong?

Technorati Tags: Main Stream Media, Blogging

That's the one I voted for

2007-01-15T21:05:00.001-05:00

* Update

Though, as I said before, I was not overly impressed with his speech Wednesday night, President Bush has since gone on the offensive, defending and justifying his adjustments to the Iraq policy, and reminding me of why I supported him after 9/11 and why I voted for him in 2004.

From Ask.com news via Instapundit:

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney say they will not budge from

sending more U.S. troops to Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. "But I've made my decision, and we're going forward."

[...]

"We need to look at what options we have available to constrain the president," said Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a possible White House candidate in 2008. Democrats remain wary, though, of appearing unsupportive of American troops.

A defiant Cheney, meanwhile, said Democrats offered criticism without credible alternatives. He pointedly reminded lawmakers that Bush is commander in chief.

"You cannot run a war by committee," the vice president said of congressional input.

The aggressive White House reaction came as the House and Senate prepare to vote on resolutions opposing additional U.S. troops in Iraq.
[...]

Democrats in Congress - along with some Republicans - were unimpressed and frustrated. Beyond promising to go on record in opposition to the president's approach, the Democratic leadership is considering whether, and how, to cut off funding for additional troops.

"You don't like to micromanage the Defense Department, but we have to, in

this case, because they're not paying attention to the public," said Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who helps oversee military funding

Last night on the the FoxNews Channel, Sean Hannity reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement saying that it is not his, nor any other congressperson's, responsibility to shape policy; that repsonsibility lies solely with the Presidency. reid did not elaborate on what the role of congress was to by. But judging from past experience and current rhetoric, I would like to propose that congress has written it's own job description for shaping policy and it reads as follows:

Congress shall bitch and complain about every plan President Bush offers. If he leaves Donald Rumsfeld and the orginial cast of characters in place, we will accuse him of listening to his friends. Since he has removed Rummy et. al. we shall explain to the American people that Bush replaces those who disagree with him until he finds a group of people to echo his policy. "Stay the course" is not acceptable. Changing the course is also a bad idea. It shall be congress's role to be happy about nothing and never to approve of anything Bush does. Let it also be known that we will never provide any alternative plans. Period.

That may not be in writting anywhere in the Capitol, but it seems to be something understood by nearly all Democrats and some Republicans--specifically Chuck Hagel.

Despite this credo by which Bush's opposition strive to live by, Bush Co. are staying strong. In an interview with Chris Wallace on Sunday Morning, VP Cheney said that he believed there was "nothing [the Democrats] can do" to alter the new Iraq plan. And that seems to be true. DO not believe for a moment that Pelosi nor Reid will be brave enough to cut funding to our Armed Forces. They may want this war to end, but they want their careers to continue. And so they usually anti-Bush, miserable defeatist rhetoric will continue to stream out of the Congress, but along side it will stream the money needed to continue the war. That's just how it's going to be

*Update

Pelosi issued a warning to President Bush, telling him not to "abuse" his power:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, returning to her hometown of San Francisco,
strongly warned today that President Bush "should not abuse his power" with
regard to troop escalation in the Iraq war and said it is the duty of
Congress to "exercise oversight over his power.''
"If the president doesn't have a plan, Democrats will hold him
accountable," Pelosi said in her first public appearance outside Washington
since her election as speaker Jan. 4.

If he doesn't have a plan? Where was she on Wednesday when he addressed the American people and outlined his plan? Still, it gets better:

"We have a plan, and he knows it," Pelosi said today as she was mobbed
by well-wishers following her keynote address at the 22nd annual holiday
breakfast.

If, as Pelosi suggests, Bush knows the Democrats plan, I sure wish he'd tell us. Better yet, maybe he should tell them and they could then tell us?

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Bush, War on Terror

powered by performancing firefox

Mark Steyn: The Political Comedian

2007-01-15T09:25:00.001-05:00

Mark Steyn, introduced to me by dear ole 'Ma, is fast becoming one of my favorite columnists. His mix of humor and political create a poignant and telling column. This week, he takes on Grandmother Pelosi. The whole column is worth a read, but here are a few snippets:

Golly. One only hopes the wee ones understand that, post-coronation, Queen Nancy's ascension to the throne might cut into all this qualitytime. "Gran'ma Got Run Over By Her Reign, Dears,'' as the old song so shrewdly warns. But don't Republicans have families, too? Yes, but let's face it, they creep you out, don't they? If you have the misfortune to be nominated by the Bush administration, your kids getheadlines like ''An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated.'' That was the Washington Post's Style Section on Chief Justice John Roberts' moppets: They didn't care for ''the 1950s-style tableaux vivant,'' or the ''freshly scrubbed and adorable'' look from ''a Currier Ives landscape''; they sniffed at the ''seersucker suit with short pants'' of ''towheaded Jack'' and his sister's ''blond pageboy''; they didn't even like the name ''Jack.''

[...]

I would wager that, when the young Nancy Pelosi had ''five children in six years,'' a hefty percentage of that parenthood wasn't planned. She is, in that sense, philosophically at odds with her party -- and,indeed, with her congressional district. San Francisco now registers more dogs that it does schoolchildren. Lest you think I'm being my usual homophobic self, I hasten to add that for once I'm not: It speaks well for the Bay Area that they had to embrace the gay life to match

the collapsed birth rates European cities have managed to achieve heterosexually. Nonetheless, at a time when fertility rates call into question the survival of Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain and Italy, the new speaker certainly presents an unusual model: She appears to be a rare example of a woman who truly ''has it all.'' She had five kids and then became the first female speaker in human history, an event (according to the media) women have been waiting for since Caveman Ug

said, ''Hi, honey, I'm home!'' and clubbed the missus over the head for being late with the saber-toothed meatloaf. It's certainly not the career path feminist orthodoxy has commended these last 30 years, but it seems to have brought Pelosi happiness, and at a time of greater

life expectancy it has a certain logic: Have kids in your 20s, go into politics in your 40s, serve as two-term president in your 60s. You can have it all!

I think the GOP should give up trying to demonize Nancy Pelosi. The Botox gags and bug-eyed photos won't work. Tonally, she seems very normal, in ways that, for example, certain presidentially inclined New York senators can never quite manage. But Pelosi's fellow California

liberals and those gushing feminist columnists ought to ponder why ''the most powerful woman in America'' is quite so untypical: What does it say when it's the exception that proves the ruler?

Two-term President Pelosi? Let's hope note...

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Feminism

Points to ponder

2007-01-12T17:25:00.001-05:00

The Anchoress provides us with 10 points to ponder:

10. Life is sexually transmitted.

9. Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die

8. Men have two emotions: Horny and Hungry. If he’s not chasing you, make him a sandwich. (Is that true?)

7. Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and they won’t bother you for weeks.

6. Some people are like a slinky - not really good for much, but you can’t help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

5. Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospital dying of nothing.

4. All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.

3. Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars,and a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents?

2. In the 60’s, people took LSD to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

1. We know exactly where one cow with mad-cow-disease is located among
the millions and millions of cows in America, but we haven’t a clue as
to where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are located.

So much for bipartisanship and returned civility to the Senate

2007-01-12T09:51:00.001-05:00

* Update

From The New York Post:

January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold

from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over

Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

[...]

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer

said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

The junior senator from California apparently believes that an

accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to

two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make

policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is

a single, childless woman.
It's hard to imagine the firestorm

that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a

Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate.

(Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit

higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

I thought the feminist dream was for strong, single women who put themselves or their jobs or their dreams and aspirations above and beyond traditional family roles? I guess that doesn't apply to brilliant women like Rice. But it really isn't surprising, is it? I mean the fact that Democrats would be so rude and disrespectful is not a new thing. We've seen it before with the head of the DNC delivering a fiery rant about the evils and racists ways of Bush. We've heard it from the 2000 Democrat Presidential candidate as he screamed from behind the podium that "Bush lied to us. He played on our fears." So such hateful rhetoric should hardly come as a shock.

The writer of this article suggests that:

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's

assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time

of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political

self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

Sadly, it appears that way...

*Update:

More from Wizbang on this issue

Technorati Tags: Liberalism

So much for bipartisanship and returned civility to the Senate

2007-01-12T09:11:00.001-05:00

From The New York Post:

January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold
from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over
Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

[...]

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer
said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

The junior senator from California apparently believes that an
accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to
two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make
policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is
a single, childless woman.
It's hard to imagine the firestorm
that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a
Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate.
(Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit
higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

The writer of this article suggests that:

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's
assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time
of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political
self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

Obviously.

Technorati Tags: Liberalism

Why not?

2007-01-11T23:26:00.001-05:00

UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge wonders why the GOP doesn't call on the great Fred Thompson to run in '08:

Fred Thompson's had an enviable career: successful lawyer, actor, Senator. Now he's a NRO columnist, weighing in on Bush's latest Iraq speech. Meanwhile, I keep thinking: the GOP did pretty well the last time it chose an actor to run for President. Why not go back to that well and draft Thompson? Compared to the leading choices - the flip-flopper, the old man who's probably a closet liberal, and the guy who probably can't win the nomination - Thompson looks pretty darn good.

Let's see what good ole Wiki has to offer on Thompson:

On November 8, 1994, Thompson was elected to the United States Senate to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Al Gore, defeating six-term Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Cooper in a landslide which represented the most votes anyone had ever received for a statewide office in Tennessee history up to that point. Thompson took the oath of office on December 2, 1994. Almost immediately upon his arrival in Washington, D.C. ("while I was still unpacking my boxes," as he put it), Thompson was selected by the Republicans to give a reply to a nationally-televised address by President Bill Clinton. This was no doubt due to his acting background, but many pundits saw this as an attempt to groom him for an even larger political role. Thompson was easily re-elected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003 over Democratic attorney Houston Gordon of Covington, Tennessee by an even larger margin than that by which he had defeated Cooper two years earlier. His name was regularly mentioned in the year 2000 Vice President alongside the Republican Presidential nominee George W. Bush.

While in the Senate, he was chair of the Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997 to January 3, 2001 which conducted investigations into allegations China attempted to influence American politics prior to the 1996 elections (See: campaign finance scandal) and January 20, 2001 to June 6, 2001, when the reorganization of the Senate prompted by the resignation of James Jeffords of Vermont from the Republican Party changed the control of the Senate. Thompson then became the ranking minority member.

Considering his stance on Bush's speech last night, as noted by Instapundit, why not go ahead and through his name out there on all the polls:

In his address last night much of what the president said had been anticipated by the media — the additional troops, the understanding that he has with the Maliki government as to their responsibilities and so forth. But I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what's necessary. He’s taking the gloves off.

And, contrary to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead of talking to Iran and Syria the president is taking them on too.

I'll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves "what if we'd taken care of business this way years ago?"

My mother and I have talked in the past about the possibility of a Fred Thompson Presidential bid and I can assure everyone in America that he has at least one supporter for such a bid living in Augusta, WV. I, too, think that he could fair well, considering the alternatives.

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election

Live-blogging: President Bush's Speech

2007-01-10T21:32:00.001-05:00

Not sure if this is how a "live-blogging" session is done, but I'm going to do it as I see fit...

As per any time the Pres. speaks in front of the camera, Bush looks nervous.

9:00: Good that Bush notes that Iraq has made progress though it has been overshadowed. Equally of note is the fact that Bush has already acknowledged Iranian influence.
9:02: Bush notes that there has been a variety of input from a variety of sources in shaping the new approach. Again, Bush addresses that US failure in Iraq is a victory for extremists and for Iran. Baghdad is key to victory--a large percentage of violence is centered in 30 mile radius of city. Lack of troops has prevented success in Baghdad, as well as the restrictions for engagement with the enemy.
9:04: The Iraqi government is to implement and deploy 18 army and police brigades to patrol and set up check-points. Majority of US troop surge to work along side Iraqis in Baghdad. US troops will "help ensure success when we leave." Why? How? Political interference prevented US invasion into neighborhoods harboring the enemy? "America's commitment is not open-ended." I hope Bush is serious about this--Maliki must stand up and say that victory must be achieved.
9:08: "America will hold Iraqi government to benchmarks." Security by November? This sounds ambitious...Good to stress importance of sparking the Iraqi economy and political landscape. Reforming de-baathification laws sound similar to what happened in the Antebellum South.
9:09: "We will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces." This is something we have heard before, yet we have not seen much of this reach fruition.
9:10: "We will continue to pursue al Queda and foreign fighters." So far we've talked a lot about al Qaeda. Tribal leaders in the Anbar province are helping defeat the terrorists. We are working with natives here like we did in Afghanistan, no?
9:11: "Defending territorial integrity...begins with Iran and Syria." Bush explains what we already know--Iran and Syria are supporting with manpower, training and weaponry. Bush says we'll "destroy the networks," but how?
9:13: "We will work with others to prevent nuclear Iran..." How? We've not done much on this front thus far.
9:14: "This is the decisive ideological struggle." This is an understatement.
9:15: "Let me be clear, the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience...deadly acts of violence will continue and we must expect casualties to continue...There will be no surrender ceremony." This is something that many still--going on six years after 9/11--do not understand. This is a new enemy and a new conflict unlike anything before.
9:17: "We concluded that to step back now would see the collapse of Iraq...this would cause our troops to stay longer and face an enemy more lethal." Again, this is something many do not understand. Bush pledges to listen to Congress and make changes as he sees fit. Though the likes of Kennedy don't understand this, Bush has outlined exactly how the Congress relates to the Commander in Chief. Kudos to Bush for giving Lieberman a "shout-out."
9:19: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time." Bush praises the troops and calls for more Americans to work hard to protect the United States. This is one area that Bush has never wavered in--he always articulates his love, admiration and support for the troops he commands.
9:20: "We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us."

I am glad that Bush did not gravel before Congress in his admission of his mistakes. He was convincing and better than usual in front of the camera, but he did not speak with the passion that he has in front of a live audience. More passion always works better for selling an important point.

I also would have liked to have seen more said about the role of Iran and Syria in causing trouble for our troops and for the men and women in our armed forces. The trouble in Baghdad is clearly the fault of insurgents infiltrating Iraq from Syria and Iran with training and weapons provided by Syria and Iran and with intel and support provided by Syria and Iran. That is the single most important point to be made.

Now Dick Durbin is speaking:

"Tonight Bush acknowledged that we are not winning the war." He said no such thing...
"He has not listened to his top Genderals such as John Abizaid." A few months ago Dems like Durbin were complaining that Bush was only listening to his Generals and not to Congress or other outsiders.
Durbin acknowledges that the US has done much ("Giving Iraq so much") at a great cost. "Now it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government must prove...[this]" Isn't this what Bush just said? They must meet the benchmarks set forth by Bush et. al.

Durbin said little that was of any substance. He called for the withdrawal of troops rather than an increase to force Iraq to stand up. What if that doens't work? As Bush pointed out, we'll be back in Iraq spending even more money and even more American lives. We must finish the job now.

Technorati Tags: War on Terror, Iraq War, Bush

But what is to be done?

2007-01-10T09:12:00.001-05:00

As I prepare to head back to Shepherd U this afternoon for the start of the spring semester, I thought it would be interesting to post some excerpts from Victor David Hanson on the state of the modern American university. As per usual, this article comes via Instapundit:

I was thinking of all this the other day, remembering the Larry
Summers fiasco, eighty-eight of the Duke faculty weighing in through a
public letter against their own students unjustly accused, the Ward
Churchill mess, and the assorted outbursts of professors since 9/11.
We should at least insist on a little accountability from this
increasingly medieval institution. After teaching some twenty years in
the university and writing about its endemic problems, I keep asking
myself the same questions.

I think Hanson makes a particularly strong point here. There really is no accountability for a tenured college professor. Oh sure, the administration at a university can insist on reviewing a tenured professor but, as we have seen with Ward Churchill, even when a tenured prof. does something disagreeable, there is very little that can be done. Considering the amount of government waste administred by teh federal government for public education, government intervention does not seem to be the way to go. But something must be done.

He continues:

Why? Why? Why?
Why does tuition continue to rise beyond the rate of inflation?
Why does the faculty castigate the free enterprise system that its
own development officers court to ensure competitive faculty
compensation? After all, their much praised socialism ensures
under-funded universities, as we see in Europe where the once great
institutions of higher learning have slipped badly and lack the
resources of a Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Texas, or Berkeley.
Why do such vocal egalitarians stay mum, when part-time faculty and
graduate students often teach classes for a fraction of professors’
pay, in a hierarchical system of exploitation that even the much
maligned Wal-Mart would never get away with?
Why do professors insist after six years on life-long tenure—when
everyone from garbage collectors to lawyers and doctors do not enjoy
such insulation from both the market and accountability about job
performance? If it is for the promise of “academic freedom” and
“intellectual diversity” then the resulting institutionalized
uniformity and mediocrity were not worth the cost. Compare the lopsided
Academic Senate votes about issues extraneous to the operation of the
university from gay marriage to the war in Iraq. There are usually
reminiscent of plebiscites in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Castro’s Cuba
with majorities of 90-100%.
Why when academia is so critical of other American institutions,
from the Republican party and corporations to churches and the
military, does it ignore its own colossal failures? The level of
knowledge of the today’s graduate is the stuff of jokes, exactly what
one would expect once a common shared instruction in science, history,
literature, languages, and mathematics largely disappeared, replaced by
a General Education potpourri of specialized classes in gender, race,
class, and politics masquerading as knowledge-based?

Here, again, I have to agree. I have had more in my own classes about gender and race equality than I have about anything I really need to know. Racial equality should be saved for Civil Rights classes and after-class workshops, not the core around which an education class is built. I have said before that as I approach the finish line (just over a year left before completing my Secondary Ed: Social Studies degree) I don't feel that i have learned much. Oh there are exceptions--such as my Modern European History class I had last year--but for the most part the "knowledge" I have 'gained' as been based on either rout memorization of facts that slipped away upon completing the unit examination OR on the spouting of ideological theories about equality and race/gender relations in education. Seldom have I struggled with theory or with putting together any sort of orginal research. Instead, I memorize the facts or regurgitate the B.S. put forth by professors attempting to advance their own agenda.

All these thoughts I think explain the tragic-comic position of
today’s university presidents who Janus-like must talk like normal
humans when courting alumni donors only to assume alien characteristics
when dealing with their often lunatic faculty. I noticed once that UC
Berkeley administrators always talked about a beloved “Cal” to their
alumni constituents, but always “Berkeley” to their grim-faced faculty,
as if there were two different campuses. And, of course, there were—the
real tragic one of the present, and the idealized lost one of the past.

And there certainly are two universities: one that the donors and parents/prospective students see. This university is the one of higher education, cultural enrichment and of cutting edge knowledge which parents, students and donors would be proud to be affiliated with. Behind the scenese, though, is a university of elitism and bottom lines. The professors, who see themselves as "intellectuals" and therefore above the "common people" seem to believe they are above and beyond any accountability called for by anybody from outside the ranks of teh university system. Simotaneously, the administration--even as its faculty calls for socialistic revolution in the government--operates teh university as a big coorporation similar to one which its staff so detests. The administrations sole concern lies not with the best interests of the students, but instead with the bottom line: "how much money are we making anyway?"

Still, even with all these vary valid points made, Hanson fails to make any recommendations for improvement. I have some ideas, but I'll save those for another time...

Technorati Tags: Education

Test

2007-01-09T21:34:00.001-05:00

Just downloaded the Performancing plug-in for Mozilla's Firefox browser. The general idea is that I can push F8 on any webpage that I'm on and be typing a blog post. We'll see how well it works. I'd been looking for a blog editor for Mac OS X that was compatible with the "new blogger" since I bought the thing. We'll see how well this works...

Apple and Cingular team up...

2007-01-09T19:32:00.000-05:00

Exciting news for gadget geeks and Mac-Nazis (and by the way, just because I'm the new owner of a Mac does not make me a Mac-Nazi. I'm talking about the die-hard "Mac is best and PC is evil. Die Bill Gates, die!!" people...). From Reuters via Drudge.

AN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. unveiled an eagerly-anticipated iPod mobile phone with a touch-screen on Tuesday, priced at $599 for 8 gigabytes of memory, pushing the company's shares up as much as 8.5 percent.
Chief Executive Steve Jobs said the iPhone, which also will be available in a 4-gigabyte model for $499, will ship in June in the United States. The phones will be available in Europe in the fourth quarter and in Asia in 2008.
Apple said Cingular Wireless, the No. 1 U.S. wireless network, will be the company's U.S. cellular partner.

Cingular said the contract is "multi-year and exclusive."
[...]

The 11.6 millimeter phone includes a 3.5-inch wide touchscreen display with multi-touch support and a 2 megapixel camera. It runs on Apple's OS X operating system, has the Safari browser for Internet searching and e-mail that can handle graphics and work with external e-mail services.

Now I had a Dell Axim PDA a while back. I rarely used it, opting instead for the good ole fashioned pencil-paper method of organization. When I sold the Axim, I looked into purchasing the Palm Treo, but I just couldn't see shelling out the money for the gadget as well as the monthly fee that Cingular charges for data transfer to PDA/Smart Phones. At a starting price of $499, I don't see me personally purchasing one--at least not when they first come out. I'd love to play with one for a couple of days, though...

For more, be sure to visit Popular Mechanics.

Real Foods

2007-01-07T21:34:00.000-05:00

I read a review at The Crisper for Nina Blanck's book Read Food: What to Eat and Why. It sounded interesting and so I used my Christmas gift card to Barnes and Noble to purchase it. As of tonight at 9:35 I'm about 40 pages shy of finishing it.

The basic premise of the book is one which I not conly can comprehend, but can fully support: eat as much real food--lean organic beef and chicken, fish, fruits, veggies, whole milk and milk products--as you want, whenever you want it. Meanwhile, limit 'industrial food'--refined sugar and carbs, industrial veggies, fish, chicken and fruits/veggies--as much as possible. As the guy at The Crisper notes:

[Planck's] primarily an advocate of eating the things we’ve been eating for tens of thousands of years. Nothing that comes in a Kraft box, Lipton bag, or from the cereal aisle was around 100,000 years ago. And you cannot simply slap a “Good Source of Calcium” sticker on a box of Hot Pockets and pretend it’s not crap.

Certainly her basic premise is an increasingly common refrain, but Planck doesn't just echo this common food knowledge. Instead she takes an in depth look at the underlying science as to why real food makes sense. She breaks down the importance of fats in brain and muscular development. She outlines methods for balancing one's diet. And finally she abandons the usual "reduced or non-fat" approach and explains the use of fats found only in whole milk/yogurt/cheese in binding protein and vitamins within our bodies. This was by far the most curious point of her book: the real food part makes sense and has been said a hundred times before, the full fat part makes sense the way she laid it out, but is something I have never before heard. I'll follow up on that if I can...

From Planck's site:

Don't you find it odd that the experts blame butter and beef for heart disease, even though heart disease as we know it has only been around since 1912, and we've been eating butter for 30,000 years and beef for 3 million?

Don't you find it funny that the foods in all traditional diets - starting with breast milk - are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol, yet people who eat these traditional foods liberally don't get heart disease? Nor are they fat or diabetic.

The experts are mistaken. The so-called diseases of civilization - obesity, diabetes, and heart disease - are not caused by real food. The diseases of industrialization - as I call them - are caused by the foods of industrialization.

What are industrial foods? In the triple epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, the three main villains are trans fats, corn oil, and sugar - not butter and eggs.

In Real Food: What to Eat and Why, I explain why traditional foods such as butter are healthy and industrial foods are not. You'll learn how butter, lard, beef, cheese, eggs, and other foods we've been eating for thousands of years got a bad rap - and why it's a bad rap.

Pick up a copy of Real Food: What to Eat and Why if you have even the slightest interest in organic foods, nutrition or body science. It is a very interesting read.

A scathing critique

2007-01-06T11:59:00.000-05:00

Received a link to Charles Krauthammer's WaPo column from yestarday in which he offers a scathing critique of Saddam's trial. Some excerpts:

For the Iraqi government to have botched both his trial and execution, therefore, and turned monster into victim, is not just a tragedy but a crime -- against the new Iraq that Americans are dying for and against justice itself.

[...]

The trial managed to repair the image of the man the world had last seen as a bedraggled nobody pulled cowering from a filthy hole. Now coiffed and cleaned, he acted the imperious president of Iraq, drowning out the testimony of his victims in coverage seen around the world.

That was bad enough. Then came the execution, a rushed, botched, unholy mess that exposed the hopelessly sectarian nature of the Maliki government.

[...]

True, Hussein's hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the death penalty provision, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless hangings.

[...]

Finally, there was the motley crew -- handpicked by the government -- that constituted the hanging party. They turned what was an act of national justice into a scene of sectarian vengeance. The world has now seen the smuggled video of the shouting and taunting that turned Saddam Hussein into the most dignified figure in the room -- another remarkable achievement in burnishing the image of the most evil man of his time.
Worse was the content of the taunts: "Moqtada, Moqtada," the name of the radical and murderous Shiite extremist whose goons were obviously in the chamber. The world saw Hussein falling through the trapdoor, executed not in the name of a new and democratic Iraq but in the name of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose death squads have learned much from Hussein.
The whole sorry affair illustrates not just incompetence but also the ingrained intolerance and sectarianism of the Maliki government. It stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else.
We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government. This governing coalition -- Maliki's Dawa, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Sadr's Mahdi Army -- seems intent on crushing the Sunnis at all costs. Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us.

Krauthammer certainly makes a strong case for resisting a surge of troops in Iraq, and he offers a fine outline of the problems with the the way the trial and execution were, well, executed. I knew that thing didn't go as they should, but it wasn't until reading his column that I truly grasped just how botched the entire affair was. What a shame. Here, the Iraqis were presented with a truly historically unique situation--to try and execute one of the world's most truly heinous dictators--and they, under our leadership, were unable to properly procede. True, The Butcher of Baghdad has been disposed of, but truer still is the fact that the problems surrounding the entire affair will overshadow the significance of the hanging itself.

Not surprising

2007-01-06T11:44:00.000-05:00

Don Surber reports on the lack of MSM coverage of new approval rating polls. According to these polls, Bush has about a 45% approval rating, with Pelosi holding at approximately 43%. Surber and others suggest that there is actually less diference between the mark than others, so be sure to read his column for his analysis. As for my own thoughts, I think it's hardly surprising that the MSM would not cover the results. Yet in all fairness, I find it had to understand how anybody can approve or disapprove of Pelosi's work, as she hasn't yet done anything. I say give here few weeks, then take the poll. Maybe that's just me, though.

But they're still classics

2007-01-02T20:29:00.000-05:00

Heard about this on Bill Bennett's morning show on Sirius radio--which I don't know if I've said before, but is by far the best $100 initial investment and $13/month I have ever spent and I hate being anywhere in any vehicle without it--and then read it at Betsy's Page. It appears originally in The Washington Post:

...[T]housands of novels and nonfiction works have been eliminated from the Fairfax County collection after a new computer software program showed that no one had checked them out in at least 24 months.
Public libraries have always weeded out old or unpopular books to make way for newer titles. But the region's largest library system is taking turnover to a new level.
Like Borders and Barnes & Noble, Fairfax is responding aggressively to market preferences, calculating the system's return on its investment by each foot of space on the library shelves -- and figuring out which products will generate the biggest buzz. So books that people actually want are easy to find, but many books that no one is reading are gone -- even if they are classics.
"We're being very ruthless," said Sam Clay, director of the 21-branch system since 1982. "A book is not forever. If you have 40 feet of shelf space taken up by books on tulips and you find that only one is checked out, that's a cost."

But it's not just an abundance of books on tulips that are getting the axe...

Classics such as Ernest Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" are among the titles that haven't been checked out in two years and could be eliminated. Librarians so far have decided to keep them.
As libraries clear out titles, they sweep in new ones as fast as they can. A two-month-old program called "Hot Picks" is boosting copies of bestsellers by tracking the number of holds requested by patrons. This month, every Fairfax branch will display new books more prominently, leaving even less space for older ones.
"We don't want to keep what people don't use much of," Clay said. Circulation, a sign of prestige and a potential bargaining chip for new funding, is on pace to hit 11.6 million in the Fairfax system this year, part of a steady climb over the past three years.
[...]
Part of my philosophy is that you collect for the ages," [Arlington County's library director, Diane] Kresh said. "The library has a responsibility to provide a core collection for the cultural education of its community." She comes to this view from a career at the Library of Congress, where she was chief of public service collections for 30 years.

Again, I'd like to take just a minute to point out that To Kill a Mocking Bird is NOT an information book on friggin' tulips. As Kresh said, libraries should be ageless collections of knowledge, not simply a collection of popular culture. When libraries are used for academic research, writers such as Hemingway and books such as TO Kill a Mocking Bird are hot-ticket items. Josh Grisham--as good as he may be--is not. That isn't to say that some books, like the 20 some hypothetical volumes on tulips, shouldn't nor mustn't be eliminated, but certainly some books--like those by Hemingway, one of the true masters of literature, must be made exempt, lest libraries find themselves moving towards irrelevancy.

Happy New Year

2006-12-31T23:41:00.000-05:00

Thanks to all (few) who read this blog on a regular, semi-regular or seldom basis. It is safe to say that 2006 was an interesting year, and 2007 is setting up to be much of the same.

Personally, I was blessed with good health, success and happiness throughout 2006, and I hope you were too.

At any rate, here's to you and a prosperous, happy and safe 2007 for all. Best wishes and may God bless...

Round-up

2006-12-30T23:13:00.000-05:00

There is some unposted business left to be discussed before the week ends in approximately 45 minutes. Two recipes, a quick overview of my first day as a Mac user and finally my Christmas roundup.

We shall start with the Mac. As noted this afternoon, the new MacBook Black came this after noon via FedEx. Extremely quick shipping considering I ordered it at 8pm on Thursday night. I expected it to be calendar refill I ordered for my planner or some of the text books I ordered earlier in the week, but to my (pleasant) surprise, it was my Christmas gift to myself.

Just like PC, the initial power-up required some housekeeping chores. User accounts, default settings etc. etc. had to be attended to first and foremost. I had been worried prior to my purchase that the MacBook would not interface correctly with the Windows Wireless home network we have here at the house. Blog posts and other ineternet stories suggested that connection *could* be made, but that it would be a difficult process. Wrong. An available network list came up, i clicked it and provided the password, and bam, I'm connected. It was that easy.

Next I set to task attempting to find a way to transfer my emails from the PC. After reading several highly technical articles, I stumbled on one which advocated converting from Outlook to Eudora for Windows, then transferring the files which would work with Mac's pre-loaded, integrated mail client. The address book transfered just fine; no such luck with the email. After several unsuccessful attempts which resulted in all the emails appearing in the box, but having no text associated with them, I went back to the PC and opted to save the very vital emails as text files and swap them to the Mac that way. I'll be holding on to the PC for a while anyway, as I still need it for our home business until we get a Mac friendly version of QuickBooks.

I've spent the rest of the afternoon and evening just playing around. I've been able to communicate from my computer to my cell phone via Mac's built in Bluetooth technology. Unfortunately, I can send data to the phone, but have yet to work out the kinks as to how to go from phone to Mac. The iPhoto software is pretty interesting, too. It's straight forward and much more functional and user friendly than anything I ever used on PC. Acquiring images from my Cannon PowerShot A75 was also a cinch. The iWeb feature seems to be a quick easy way to build websites and even features software to build a blog. Sounds like fun. I might have to check into leaving blogger and finding my own domain. Any suggestions?

I opted to download Firefox over the Safari internet browser provided by Mac. My old Newsgator client was not Mac friendly, so I switched to one called Shrook. So far so good in that department as well. Overall, I must say that I am quite pleased with the switch. We'll see when I get back to school and the Mac gets put through the vigor of day to day usage. I have to say that I'm even a bit ashamed of my unwillingness to have explored this option earlier, but I will also admit up front that I am NOT one of these hardcore Mac only types that laughs at folks who use a PC platform. So that is that...

Next up: Recipe time.

For our Christmas celebration, I cooked for the girlfriend. She came over, we ate and exchanged gifts. I made Chicken Francois from the Healthy Eating Cookbook. It was delicious. The chicken was pounded to about 1/4" thick, then coated lightly in flour, then dipped in a mixture of egg substitute, cheese, salt, pepper and a few other odds and ends, then lightly fried in olive oil. To round out the meal, I served risotto and steamed brocoli.

After the meal, we headed to a nearby town to see The Nativity which was quite a lovely movie. The writers really did an effective job of capturing the majesty of teh event as best could be expected. Furthermore, the interwoven humor provided by the Magaii was very enjoyable.

Christmas treated me well. Clothes were the big-ticket items for me this year. I received no shortage of sweaters and winter clothes, which were appreciated as my wardrobe needed to be boosted a little bit. A new leather jacket headlined the gifts from the parents, which also included the DVD of Les Miserables performed by the so called dream cast. Watching it again gave me cold chills, and Valjean's confrontation with Javear made every hair on my neck stand at attention. Rounding out the gift giving was a new leather planner (which was highly needed) and a mug which reads: "I'm a scary conservative with a hidden agenda..."

Christmas went off without a hitch. Considering that various members of my family (on both sides) have had health issues (from kidney stones, to liver transplants) it was good just to be with the family. We even had a new baby on my dad's side. While I don't have any pictures of the big Christmas meal, I assure you all that it was delicious and beautiful.

Last night, everybody was in a sort of "no need for a 'big dinner'" mood, so I put my parents new Cuisinart Griddler to work making panninis. They were delicious: Capricola, baked ham, prosciutto, tomato-garlic pesto, pepper-jack cheese, roasted red peppers, tomatoes, thinly sliced red onion and semolina bread come together to form the "perfect panini." Here, the mega-sandwhich is enjoyed with toasted butternut squash (I had some raw left over from Christmas eve dinner) and one of my first (and favorite) legally-enjoyed alcoholic beverages since celebrating my 21st on Tuesday: The Hornsby Hard Cider. Yum.

So this has been a long entry about much of nothing. For those who read all the way to the bottom, I apologize for being length and for any hunger pain that reading or seeing about these two meals may have caused.

Just in

2006-12-30T12:40:00.000-05:00

Received the new MacBook this morning (quick shipping, eh?). So far so good. Obviously I'm still on a learning curve. It'll take a while to get used to the small screen and the new OS after all those years of windows. At this point I'm trying to import my email from my PC to the new MacBook. I've tried a couple of things, but with no luck (my address book has transfered just fine, but the actual email messages haven't come over as easily...) I'll keep everyone posted as I make the switch...

Time for a change?

2006-12-29T00:22:00.001-05:00

**Update: Scroll Down

Apparently so...

I've been computer shopping for a couple of months now. No hurry, but the realization that my trusty Dell 8600 isn't going to last forever finally struck me and has been perpetuated by the consistent freezing up, sporadic shutting down and general decreased functionality of the formerly 'ole reliable.' The prospects of purchasing a new Dell were slim due to several difficult bouts with somebody in a far away land who pretends to speak English and works for Dell tech support. They were lessened even further when my mothers dell (less than 2 years old at the time) simply stopped working just a few days after it's warranty expired.

So I began looking around with Dell in the back of my mind. By many accounts, the Sony Vaio reigns supreme in the PC world, but with a very high starting price and the simple fact that whether it's in a Dell or a Sony case it's still a Windows based machine (and it was not the Dell case that was freezing up now was it...) I decided to explore the world of Mac.

Now for the past couple of years I've given one of my long time friends a very hard time about being a Mac-fanatic. Mostly it's just be being a pain in the ass, but part of it was a general dislike Mac. As one of the blogs I read during my investigation admitted, "Sadly, I was simply afraid of what I did not know." As my investigation became more serious, I emailed said friend with a list of questions. She--upon getting over the initial shock--was quite helpful to me.

Anyway, to make an already long story short, I, like Glenn Reynold's, just ordered a Mac after years of swearing by the trusty ole PC. To be specific, I ordered a MacBook 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Black.

Here's a little breakdown on why I decided to switch:

I have yet to read an entry via the blogs OR professionally owned/operated technology websites that has anything but praise over security. While I have always been lucky in staying clear of viruses, they've been a long time worry for me.
Most of what I read swears by the speed of the Mac, especially for booting up.
I have tried and tried to master image and music editing (more image than music) via PC. Again, blogs and other sites that I read had nothing but praise for the ease of such editing via mac.
Mac's incorporation of the Intel chip.
Something different. As bad a reason as that may sound, the same old windows was getting a little old.

At any rate, for better or worse there is a black MacBook on it's way. I shall be back with my first impressions sometime between Tuesday and Friday of next week...

** Update: It looks like I may have made the right choice in opting for Mac over Vista:

[Microsoft] on Friday confirmed the vulnerabilities, which were first reported by independent third parties, but pointed out that no malicious programmes taking advantage of the flaws had yet appeared.

The flaw allows a user with standard system privileges to gain wider access to system tools and settings without the approval of a network administrator. This potentially disables a key security feature of Vista but attackers would first need to gain access to a computer through some other means before exploiting the vulnerability. A vulnerability in the new web browser Internet Explorer 7 was reported at the same time.

Oh my...

Technorati tags: Gadgets and Technology

Gerald Ford

2006-12-27T09:47:00.001-05:00

*Update

Obviously at the ripe-old age of 21 I don't remember anything about Gerald Ford or his presidency. But I do remember this:

Gerald Ford dead and Tom Brokaw is gay
What if Ford was eaten by a pack of wolves
If he was, I'm sure he would have been delicious
What if he was chopped into little-bits by a commuter plane?

Yes, I'm talking about Dana Carvey's hilarious sketch as Tom Brokaw attempting to cover each and every possible news story before going on vacation.

Hats of to the man credited with healing the nation after Nixon's mess.

* For a little more substance, try Tigerhawk's coverage...

Remember Rome

2006-12-27T09:30:00.001-05:00

From The Boston Globe:

The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.

[...]

With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.
"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.
[...]
Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.
[...]
O'Hanlon and others noted that the country has relied before on sizable numbers of noncitizens to serve in the military -- in the Revolutionary War, for example, German and French soldiers served alongside the colonists, and locals were recruited into US ranks to fight insurgents in the Philippines
But it would take years and billions of dollars to recruit, train, and equip the 30,000 troops and 5,000 Marines the Pentagon says it needs. And military recruiters, fighting the perception that signing up means a ticket to Baghdad, have had to rely on financial incentives and lower standards to meet their quotas.
That has led Pentagon officials to consider casting a wider net for noncitizens who are already here, said Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty , an Army spokesman.
[...]
"It is not without historical precedent," said Donnelly, author of a recent book titled "The Army We Need," which advocates for a larger military.
Still, to some military officials and civil rights groups, relying on large number of foreigners to serve in the military is offensive.
The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as "cannon fodder" in any conflict.

I think there are couple of points on this storyworth exploring. It should be noted first and foremost, however, that if military leadership, the new SecDef and the President are all suggesting that we need to increase the overall number of troops, then we probably need to increase the overall number of troops. Of course, such an observation will undoubtedly be exploited for political gain by those who oppose the Iraq war and the broader war on terror. They will certainly say that if Bush had not put us into these wars then we wouldn't be short on troops. Of course, what good is a giant army if we never use it?

Secondly, I think it is safe to say that when we say the army is considering using "non-citizens" we actually mean it is considering using an increased number of non-citizen Hispanic folk, right? Probably so, but for the National Council of La raza to fear that immigrants would be "cannon fodder" is outrageous. Do such troops (those used only for cannon fodder) even exist anymore? This is 2006, not 1915.

Thirdly, comparing the use of immigrants today to the use of immigrants in the Revolutionary War is a bit unequivocal. There were no American citizens at the onset of the American Revolution because there was no America. Another point to consider here is that French nationalists were not fighting in the Revolution for the love of the fledgling democracy. They were fighting for their own imperialist interests after being handedly defeated by the French in past North American conflicts.

Fourthly and finally am I the only one who remembers what happened to Rome? Their apathy of the non-Roman troops towards the future of Rome ultimately led to its demise. Do we really want to be protected by a group of individuals which we are unsure of where their loyalties lie? Need we remember the Mexican flag waving celebrations of MEXICAN NATIONALISM which occurred in our cities just a few months earlier. These individuals are not loyal to the United States. They are loyal to their home countries, and that is not what we need or want in our Armed Forces.

Technorati tags: War on Terror, Armed Forces

2006-12-25T00:30:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas

If it weren't for us...

2006-12-20T09:31:00.001-05:00

From The Washington Post:

UNITED NATIONS -- Iran demanded Tuesday that the U.N. Security Council condemn what it said was Israel's clandestine development of nuclear weapons and "compel" it to place all its nuclear facilities under U.N. inspection.
If Israel refuses to comply, Iran said the council must take "resolute action" under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which authorizes a range of measures from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military action.
Iran insists its own nuclear program is a purely peaceful effort to develop energy, but the United States and many European nations believe Tehran's real aim in enriching uranium is to produce nuclear weapons. The Security Council is currently debating a resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend its enrichment program.

Now we've been fooling around with possible actions against Iran and it's so called "peaceful nuke program" (which, just as a reminder, it plans to sell to its neighbors) for far to long. But we can bet with the utmost level of confidence that if it weren't for the US and our veto power, sanctions (if not worse) against Israel would be slapped down almost instantaneously. What a different view the UN has of Israel now than sixty-ish years ago when it grantned legal status to seemingly lone sane Mid-Eastern states.

Technorati tags: Israel, Iran, United Nations

It's all about me...

2006-12-19T21:00:00.001-05:00

I'm a Lamborghini Murcielago!

You're not subtle, but you don't want to be. Fast, loud, and dramatic, you want people to notice you, and then get out of the way. In a world full of sheep, you're a raging bull.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Ok, so everything said in this paragraph is true. I am fast loud and (sometimes) dramatic. Yes, I'll admit it, I like people to tell me how much the love me and then move out of the way. Maybe it is all about me? Just kidding, of course :)

Oh, one other thing, while we're on the subject of me, I feel so compelled to brag that I received straight A's this semester. Considering several of my classes were considerably harder than usual, I am very pleased with myself. here was teh schedule I faced this semester:

EDUC 370: Creating Learning Environments
HIS 333: History of Modern Europe
HIS 202: US History, 1867-Today
EDUC 360: Educating Exceptional Children
PSCY 406: Social Psychology
PSCI 102: State and Local Government

Next semester is promising to be just as rough if not worse

Two 400 level EDUC classes
Two 300 level HIS classes (History of American Women and Sub-Saharan African History)
One 400 level HIS class (History of Russia)
One 300 level Geography class (World Economic Geography)

Just thought I'd share a little of that :)

EU Trade Chief gives France the 'what fer'

2006-12-19T11:24:00.001-05:00

From Financial Times.com

The European Union’s trade commissioner will on Monday dismiss French proposals for a “green” tax on goods from countries that have not ratified the Kyoto treaty as not only a probable breach of trade rules but also “not good politics”.
Peter Mandelson says that the levy, aiming to cancel the competitive advantage of countries that are not cutting carbon emissions to fight global warming, would be “highly problematic under World Trade Organisation rules and almost impossible to implement in practice”.

But wait, there's more:

“Not participating in the Kyoto process is not illegal. Nor is it a subsidy under WTO rules,” Mr Mandelson will warn in a podcast speech to 50,000 subscribers. “How would we choose what goods to target? China has ratified Kyoto but has no Kyoto targets because of its developing country status. The US has not ratified but states like California have ambitious climate change policies.”
Above all, he says, it would undermine the international co-operation required to combat climate change.

Well, somebody from the EU is finally making sense. Now if this fellow can just get the rest of his little buddies to wake up.

Technorati tags: Global Warming

Heh

2006-12-18T22:25:00.001-05:00

From Breitbart:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists. (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf).
Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to senior elected and appointed government officials who disagree with your opinion."
In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.
Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the argument and they compel necessary corrections ... "
Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."
Of Britain's Royal Society, a State-funded scientific body which, like the Senators, has publicly leaned on ExxonMobil, Lord Monckton said, "The Society's long-standing funding by taxpayers does not ensure any greater purity of motive or rigour of thought than industrial funding of scientists who dare to question whether 'climate changes will do any harm."
To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics with tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."
Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call disastrous and calamitous consequences."

Well, he does make a valid point, doesn't he. I mean, debate can only result in a more solid answer, right? Right.

Technorati tags: Global Warming

Great

2006-12-17T17:37:00.001-05:00

From Breitbart:

Iran's president said Saturday his country was ready to transfer nuclear technology to neighboring countries, Kuwaiti television reported, a week after Arab states on the Persian Gulf announced plans to consider a joint nuclear program.

The television said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a top Kuwaiti envoy he welcomed the decision by the Islamic republic's Arab neighbors to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer to regional states its valuable experience and achievements in the field of peaceful nuclear technology as a clean energy source and as a replacement for oil," the state quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Mohammed Zefollah Shirar, a top adviser to Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah.
Such a technological transfer would be legal as long as it is between signatory states to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and as long as the International Atomic Energy Agency that monitors the treaty was informed of the transfer.
Iran is at odds with the United States and its European allies, who accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at the peaceful production of nuclear energy.

What else can be said?

Technorati tags: Iran

Yes it's the same old song

2006-12-17T17:20:00.001-05:00

John Edwards "intends to enter the race" for the 2008 Presidential nomination. Oh joy. From Breitbart:

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to enter the 2008 race for the White House, two Democratic officials said Saturday.
Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the Senate for six years, plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina last year and slow to recover from the storm.
[...]
As Edwards enters the crowded field, the Lower Ninth Ward provides a stark backdrop to highlight his signature issue _ that economic inequality means that the country is divided into "two Americas."
Edwards also plans to travel from New Orleans through the four early presidential nominating states _ Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina _ as part of an announcement tour between Christmas and New Year's Day.
Among Democrats, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are drawing the most attention almost two years before the actual vote.
Edwards, however, is in a strong position as the leading candidate in Iowa. He was a top fundraiser in the race for the nomination in 2004 before he became Democratic Sen. John Kerry's running mate.
A poll of Iowa Democrats that was published Thursday in the Des Moines Register showed Edwards with 36 percent support, more than Clinton's 16 percent and Obama's 13 percent combined.
Edwards' campaign plans include an aggressive fundraising effort to prove that he belongs in the top tier of contenders. Because he currently does not hold federal office, Edwards does not have a war chest like some of his rivals. In fact, he has several hundred thousands of dollars of debt from his 2004 presidential campaign.

Does this mean we have to listen to that same old "we have two Americas" (the one John Edwards and his '04 running mate John Kerry live in and the one the rest of us live in) song and dance again? Oh happy day. I just didn't get enough from him two years ago...

Technorati tags: 2008 Presidential Election

Snowman

2006-12-17T16:50:00.001-05:00

The semester (and finals) are finally over. This means I am officially half way through my third year at Shepherd.

With finals and preparations to move back home, I was left with little time to blog last week. When coupled with a general lack of noteworthy stories, laziness little drive to post settled in. I hadn't even skimmed the trusty ole newsreader since Thursday. Rather than the usual week-in-review funny, here's just a little fun activity via The Anchoress. Apparently I am a snowman.

You Are a Snowman

Friendly and fun, you enjoy bringing holiday cheer to everyone you know!

What Christmas Ornament Are You?

Now, the last two weeks in review:

With break being upon me and such, I don't know how much I'll actually up date for the next few (3.5) weeks. We'll see. It may be often, then again, it may not be.

Technorati tags: The Week in Review

Why is it ok for her, but not for him?

2006-12-14T17:00:00.001-05:00

In her apology for her supposedly culturally insensitive remarks made recently regarding Chinese news reports, Rosie O'Donnell did more to infuriate me than she ever has in the past. She said, and I quote as closely as possible, that after having said "ching-chong" repeatedly in describing what a Chinese newscast might sound like she though, "so what, on you go, I do many accents...this apparently was very offensive...apparently ching-chong unbeknownst to me is a very offensive word to make fun or mock...any Asian accent. [It is] very offense...some people have told me it's as bad as the 'N' word. It was never intent to mock any[one]...I'm also going to give you fair warning there's a good chance I'll do it again...The audience laughed, [so] it's a little bit funny."

Ok, so what, right? Wrong. Why does that work for her? Is that an acceptable apology? I don't think so. I few months ago during then senate candidate George Allen's macaca incident, he was not afforded the luxury of simply apologizing and having it all go away, was he? No. I personally did not know "macaca" was a racially charged term, and I suspect the senator didn't realize this either. But rather than simply saying, "it was unbeknownst to him" as Rosie has claimed and then moving on, a big deal was made of it.

To me, this is not even the worst part, though. The worst part is that Rosie is one of the champions of the left, a true pillar of political correctness. She is so politically correct, in fact, that she caused the whole big stink over Kelly Ripa's so called anti-gay comments when she told Clay Aiken not to put his hand on her mouth because she, 'didn't know where it had been,' but she follows her apology with a disclaimer that she is probably going to do it again even though she now has a full understanding of the fact that such mocking is hurtful to Asians?

Perhaps the most unreasonable part about the whole thing was the structure of the apology. Like Mike Richard's apology on Letterman, Rosie's was met with laughter and hilarity. To me such behavior takes away all aspects of sincerity.

Outrageous. Simply outrageous.

Technorati tags: political-Correctness, liberalism, pop-culture

Well it sounds good

2006-12-14T14:31:00.001-05:00

But what will actually be done remains to be seen. From Breitbart.com:

Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who was sworn in as the next UN chief, described the tragedy in Sudan's Darfur region as "unacceptable" and pledged to be personally engaged in efforts to end the bloodshed there.
"The suffering of the people of Darfur is simply unacceptable," the 62-year-old former foreign minister told his first press conference since he took the oath office earlier Thursday to succeed Kofi Annan on January 1.
Ban said he planned to "make himself directly and personally engaged" in the search for a Darfur settlement.
He said he would consult with outgoing UN chief Kofi Annan who has been leading efforts to persuade Khartoum to accept the deployment of a robust UN force to takeover peacekeeping from ill-equipped African Union troops in Darfur.
Reiterating that there was "no military solution" to the crisis, Ban said the United Nations needed to work closely with the AU, the Sudanese government and other stakeholders to address all aspects of the issue.
The United Nations estimates that some 200,000 people have died and more than two million have been forced to flee their homes since the conflict between Khartoum and local rebels in Darfur began in 2003.

I can't understand this idea of "persuad[ing] Khartoum to accept the deployment of a robust UN force..." If the UN is the supreme international body, then do what needs to be done. The police officer does not ask the criminal to search his car. He does it. And so it should be with the United Nations. I hope Mr. Ki-moon has the--for lack of a more appropriate term--stones to take care of business. But I doubt it.

Technorati tags: Darfur, United Nations

Why wouldn't we believe that?

2006-12-13T23:25:00.001-05:00

From The Washington Post:

Two-thirds [66% for those with mathematics deficiencies] of Americans believe that the FBI and other federal agencies are intruding on privacy rights as part of terrorism investigations, but they remain divided over whether such tactics are justified, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday.

The poll also showed that 52 percent of respondents favor congressional hearings on how the Bush administration has handled surveillance, detainees and other terrorism-related issues, compared with 45 percent who are opposed. That question was posed to half of the poll's 1,005-person random sample.
Overall, the poll -- which includes questions that have been asked since 2002 and 2003 -- showed a continued skepticism about whether the government is adequately protecting privacy rights as it conducts terrorism-related investigations.
Compared with June 2002, for example, almost twice as many respondents say the need to respect privacy outranks the need to investigate terrorist threats. That shift was first evident in polling conducted in January 2006.
That sentiment is still a minority view, however: Nearly two-thirds rank investigating threats as more important than guarding against intrusions on personal privacy, down from 79 percent in 2002.
Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who is a professor in Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, said the poll results could spell trouble for the FBI and other government agencies as they continue to seek support for expanded anti-terrorism powers granted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"I don't think you can view these polling results in isolation from an overall phenomenon, which is that people are more skeptical of the government's conduct of the war on terrorism," Hoffman said.
Sixty-six percent of those questioned said that the FBI and other agencies are "intruding on some Americans' privacy rights" in terrorism investigations, up from 58 percent in September 2003. Thirty percent think the government is not intruding on privacy.
Support for intrusive tactics has dropped even more significantly during that time. A bare majority, 51 percent, feel the tactics are justified, down from 63 percent three years ago.

Why wouldn't we think this? I mean, when that is what we hear day in and day out. The eavesdropping program, which listens in on international calls, is continuously called "domestic spying" by both democrats and those in the MSM. When something is repeated often enough, people tend to believe it, so this shouldn't really shock any of us...

Technorati tags: War on Terror

Oh yea, that's why...

2006-12-11T18:36:00.001-05:00

Sometimes it is nice to be reminded of why I support certain things, such as members of the Bush Administration. I don't typically have the opportunity to watch Tony Snow's press conferences, but today was the exception, and what an exception it was.

Q Republican Senator Smith is challenging the strategy. What he basically said yesterday, as well, was, when you do the same thing over and over again without a clear strategy for victory, that is dereliction, that is deeply immoral. Such is the dispute. He's saying what the President is doing is immoral.
MR. SNOW: Well, then we disagree.
Q Tony, first of all, the --
Q You're just going to blow it off? A Republican senator is saying the President's policy may be criminal and it's immoral, and you're just saying, we just disagree?
MR. SNOW: And what would you like me to say? Should I do duels at 10 paces?
Q Don't you think you should answer for that? You're saying -- you've said from this podium over and over that the strategy is a victory, right? And you have a Republican senator is saying there is no clear strategy, that you don't have a strategy.
MR. SNOW: Well, let's let Senator Smith hear what the President has to say. We understand that this is a time where politics are emotional in the wake of an election. And you know what? Senator Smith is entitled to his opinion. But I'm not sure exactly what you would like --

and again the reporter interrupts. I thoroughly enjoy watching Tony Snow lay it out for those journalists, but the lack of respect they show him disturbs me. They treat him like an intellectual inferior who is directly responsible to the White House Press Corps, like they are his supervisors. It just bothers me.

If the UN says it...

2006-12-11T10:01:00.001-05:00

...it must be right, right? Well anyway, I missed posting last week, but I just didn't have much time AND, to make it worse, when I did have time (Thursday and Friday) this DAMN campus internet was down.

And now, the news! The UN is saying warnings about human impact on global warming may just be hot air. From the Daily Telegraph via Sister Toldjah:

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
[...]
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.
Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.
He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."

So now the problem is being hidden by the devious oceans. Those damn oceans are conspiring against us. Time bomb oceans. Good God.

What I want to know is if Bush--who has maintained all along that the jury is till out on human impact--will get any apologies considering 'new science' supposedly contributed to the adjusted report. It also makes me wonder if even NEWER science will again reduce the "impact of humans."

The first apology should come from the NASA scientist who said Bush was "controlling the flow of information" back in '04. No, no, I doubt that will happen. Whatever.

Technorati tags: Global Warming, United Nations

Just for the fun of it

2006-12-05T20:05:00.001-05:00

The blogs have been quiet today, and I haven't really been sparked by anything to write something of substance. And so instead I will have a little fun via this activity provided by The Anchoress:

1. Egg nog or hot chocolate? Coffee or sweet tea (the anytime beverage)

2. Does Santa wrap presents or just sit them under the tree? Wraps. Always has, always will.

3. Colored lights on tree/house or white? Well that changes from time to time. When I was little, it was colored lights on the tree, white lights on the house. Now it's white lights on the tree, colored lights on the house.

4. Do you hang mistletoe? We haven't in a long time.

5. When do you put your decorations up? Well it used to be the weekend after Thanksgiving, but this year school has prevented me from helping decorate. I think my parents are almost done...

6. What is your favorite holiday dish (excluding dessert)? Sweet taters and/or ham...it's hard to decide.

7. Favorite holiday memory as a child: There are some good ones. One would be the time mom bought--oops, i mean santa brought--a new Rangers jersey (white Brian Leetch jersey which I still have) and wrapped it in a boot box. I thought i'd gotten boots (exciting) so I didn't open the box. Mom had to keep probing me to "try the boots on." Finally I gave up and said ,"OK." The jersey was way better than boots...

Cooking with my Grandma on Dad's side and doing dishes with my grandma on mom's side are also good memories.

8. When and how did you learn the truth about Santa? I don't know. I don't remember ever believing to be honest. I always hated going to 'sit on santa's lap' at the mall, though.

9. Do you open a gift on Christmas Eve? I'm almost ashamed to admit that we always open our gifts on Christmas Eve. It was always easier that way when i was little because we did a lot of visiting on Christmas Eve. Before we left, Mom would send us to the car and she'd set out all the presents so that when we got back it was like Santa had already come. Then we could sleep in (or get up early to play) on Christmas day.

10. How do you decorate your Christmas tree? Lights and ornaments, garlands (not that tacky ice crap either), beads and a star on top. There is, however, some debate about Christmas tree decorations at my house. When I was little, mom would string cranberries and popcorn and I always liked that, but it was a lot of work and, to be honest, nobody ever helped her. Also, I like an Angel on top, but mom voted the angel out a couple years back.

11. Snow! Love it or dread it? Love it. The smell. The feel. The sound. The look. The feeling of knowing I get to sleep in because school is canceled. Oh how wonderful.

12. Can you ice skate? Yup.

13. Do you remember your favorite gift? Received? Probably the jersey I talked about above. Also my Darth Vader mask that i got when I was little. And last year Courtney did a great job. She surprised me the most with an updated Rangers jersey (Which i love). Given? Either these fancy snowglobes I got all my friends a couple years back OR a painting I bought my grandmother last year.

14. What’s the most important thing about the holidays for you? Too many good ones to pick just one. Heather's Christmas parties are great. Cooking for Courtney at Christmas time is always fun. Coffee and pie after Christmas dinner while listening to the family talk and tell stories.

15. What is your favorite holiday dessert? My Aunt Kristy's punchbowl cake had reigned supreme, and holds that rank for Christmas. However, my aunt Debra made a pretty mean pumpkin cheesecake this year...

16. What is your favorite holiday tradition? Christmas eve at my grandmothers. Cheese ball, soup and sweet tea. Presents and Kristy's mouth? What more can you ask for?

17. What tops your tree? See the above tree decorating section.

18. Which do you prefer, giving or receiving? Well there are benefits to both. If I bought a particularly thoughtful or brilliant gift, then it's fun to watch the other person open it.

19. What is your favorite Christmas song? God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen.

20. Candy canes: the first one of the year is good, but then you have about a trillion of them and they lie around and get nasty.

21. Favorite Christmas movie? The Christmas Story. However, I have to admit that I do have a special little place in my heart for Jingle All The Way and Elf.

22. What do you leave for Santa? Cookies and milk. But he probably really needs a Pepcid AC and a class of water.

Feel free to copy this into the comments section and fill it out yourself...

McCain's thoughts on the Baker-Hamilton Commission?

2006-12-04T19:58:00.001-05:00

From The Evening Bulletin via Instapundit:

"Well in war, my dear friends, there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose," McCain said.

The rest of the article is about the potential presidential bid, his Vietnam experience (which, I'm sorry to say and I certainly mean no disrespect for his service, but I'm always reminded of the SNL sketch where McCain is talking about his service in Vietnam and then President-to-be Bush (Will Ferrell) fesicously says, "What a second, you were in Vietnam, well I hadn't heard") and his general thoughts on the Iraq war.

I don't agree with a lot of what McCain says, but he certainly sums the truth up quite poignantly here, doesn't he? Well said, Johnny Boy.

But I can't help but wonder if his statement extends to pending wars, such as the one with Iran or North Korea if we don't stop them now? What about wars of will, again as seen in the conflict between what we want--no nukes for Iran or Korea--and what they want--the ability to wipe us off the face of the Earth? He's using that maverick talk that got Duby in trouble, isn't he? Does that equate to "you're either with us or against us?" Guess not.

Technorati tags: Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Election 2008

Couple of things

2006-12-04T10:14:00.001-05:00

*Update: Scroll Down

First of all, Sissy does a fine job of summing up the impending Baker Commission report. Let's hope Bush remains stubborn.

Secondly, I just heard of FoxNews that John "Mustache-Man" Bolton is requesting not to be renominated at the close of his recess appointment to the United Nations. He seems to be facing the unfortunate reality that the Democrats were going to block him whether in committee or on the floor. That's a damn shame. I don't know that there is any body better skilled to clean up that crap-hole that is the United Nations. It will be interesting to see how this pans out...

Not links at the moment.

Update

Link via Drudge to Breitbart's coverage:

Perino said that among Bolton's accomplishments, he assembled coalitions addressing North Korea's nuclear activity, Iran's uranium enrichment and reprocessing work and the horrific violence in Darfur. She said he also made reform at the United Nations a top issue because the United States is searching for a more "credible" and more "effective."
"Ambassador Bolton served his country with distinction and he achieve a great deal at the United Nations," Perino said.
"Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassdor Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democratic filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," she said. "Nominees deserve the opportunity for a clean up or down vote. Ambassador Bolton was never given that opportunity."
Perino said Bush had reluctantly accepted Bolton's decision to leave when his current appointment expired.

Bill Kristol points out on Fox News with E.D. Hill that Bolton has never been voted on, period. He blames Bush for not fighting for John Bolton even though Bolton has been a loyal workhorse for Bush.

Kristol also points out that Bolton was able to push much of his agenda through. He worries that this "sends the signal" that tough guys who stand up for American principles first have no place in the Administration.

Curious indeed. Kristol further wonders if (and if not, then why not) Bush could possibly nominate Bolton for Deputy Secretary of State?

With the speculation that Bush was a bit of an ass in his dismissal of Rumsfeld, I can't help but wonder just what is going on? Turning his back on Rumy, and now the speculation that he is turning his back on Bolton. Where's the Bush I voted for in '04?

Technorati tags: Iraq, United Nations

Christmas list

2006-12-03T16:15:00.001-05:00

Every year my grandmother is the first to hassle me about a "Christmas list," which I have never been fond of making. In fact, I think I've actually only made a Christmas list once or twice my entire life. This year, my mother, grandmother, girlfriend, friends and just about everybody else has asked me, "Just what do you want for Christmas?" I reply very simply, "I don't know."

And the truth is, I don't. Oh there are big-ticket items--like a new computer, this ole Dell Inspiron 8600 just doesn't run like she did three and one half years ago when I got her--but that's unnecessary and, truly, unrealistic. Besides that, I'm so picky about big-ticket items that it is typically best if I'm left to take care of those myself. But the small stuff that most lists are made of--books, CD's, DVD's, etc--just doesn't really interest me. I have a stack of books that I want to read, but never seem to find the time to in the midst of all my reading for school. Music is hard for people to buy for me, because I have a sort of strange taste and I'm quite picky with that as well. I don't really watch movies all that much--if I've seen it once, chances are I don't need nor want to see it again. And nobody wants to buy me clothes, partially because I have the tastes of a 62 year old man. So I thought it might be interesting to ask what other people, regardless of age or sex, are asking/desiring for this Christmas. Please, by all means, leave me a little note and tell me.

Technorati tags: Holidays

What a noble idea

2006-12-03T10:21:00.001-05:00

From John J. Miller via Instapundit:

Nancy Pelosi keeps bragging about the Democrats' first 100 hours. How about a GOP Congress that has a final 100 hours that reminds voters about what Republicans stand for? It could be small-bore stuff: the Colombia and Peru free-trade agreements, the Chris Smith bill on fetal pain, maybe something on taxes. Anything but this loser talk about "shelf life" and "we're tired."

Wow. Is this a statement that is actually advocating that Congress accomplish something? What a noble idea.

Technorati tags: Politcs, US News

The Christmas spirit

2006-12-02T20:47:00.001-05:00

Finally. It feels like Christmas time is coming. With the weather pattern we'd been in for the past week or so (65+ all week), it's been hard for me to get into the spirit.

After the game today, Courtney and I headed in to Hagerstown for a little dinner and some shopping. The mall was packed. I mean packed. But we still finished a little.

One thing, though, that always bothers me at Christmas time is the way people can behave. As Court said, "Christmas is supposed to bring out the best in people, but sometimes it brings out the worst, too." How true that is. I get so sick listening to parents scream at their children for every little thing. Learn to ignore, people, it'll help all parties involved--the children, the parents and more importantly the people who have to listen to the whole thing unfold.

Technorati tags: Holidays

Post Playoff Depression

2006-12-02T14:58:00.001-05:00

Rams just dropped the game 24-21 at Ram stadium. Don't know what we'll do with our Saturdays now, but I suppose we'll manage...

Abortion issues

2006-12-02T09:49:00.001-05:00

From WND:

The Christian Medical Association is urging passage of a federal bill to inform women considering an abortion of potential pain their babies can experience after 20 weeks of development.
"One thing both sides of this issue should be able to agree upon is that women should be fully informed about the medical science concerning their developing babies," said Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 17,000-member association.
The House is expected to vote on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, H.R. 6099, next week.
Stevens said the scientific findings in the measure are "clear and compelling."
"Women deserve to know exactly what an abortion involves for their baby," he said. "Imagine the heartbreak a woman would experience after being led to believe that her 22-week developing baby is simply a 'blob of tissue' only to learn after an abortion that her baby likely experienced excruciating pain. This bill sets the record straight and makes sure women are provided with the facts."
The bill's findings – reflecting testimony by scientific experts, including Drs. Kanwdfbet S. Anand and Jeanne Wright – note that at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.
"There is substantial evidence that by 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain," a draft of the bill states.
Anesthesia, the experts point out, routinely is administered to unborn children who have developed 20 weeks or more after fertilization and undergo prenatal surgery.
"There is substantial evidence that the abortion methods most commonly used 20 weeks or more after fertilization cause substantial pain to an unborn child, whether by dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull, or other methods," the bill states.
Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician with the CMA, noted the bill cites laws protecting animals from inhumane treatment, while a developing human has no such protections.
"What does this say about our blindness to the humanity of our developing babies?" he asked.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., issued a statement yesterday in support of the bill, saying he intends to "seek unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass this critical piece of legislation."
Brownback is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.

This entire debate is disturbing to me. We'll see if the House actually passes this. I'm skeptical

Technorati tags: Abortion, Liberalism

Here one day...

2006-12-01T21:33:00.001-05:00

...gone the next. The weather has been awful today. Some rain (downpouring when it comes), lots of wind and it has been hot, making it hard to feel 'in the Christmas spirit.'

Mom sent me an email with a picture from home. Apparently--well, it will be apparent when I put the image up--the wind was strong enough back home to completely knock down our Maple tree in the front yard. What a shame.

I always liked that tree, even though it didn't get many leaves. I'm quite convinced it was the woodpeckers--blood things--not the wind that ultimately should be held responsible for the herbicide that took place here.

Technorati tags: weather

The ACLU Christmas?

2006-12-01T09:39:00.001-05:00

From WND:

Campus activists plan to display an "ACLU Nativity Scene" at the University of Texas in response to the civil liberties group's "extreme" campaign to remove Christmas from the public sphere.

"We've got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn't a Jesus in the manger," said Tony McDonald, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas branch on the Austin campus.
[...]
The three Wise Men in the display are Lenin, Marx and Stalin, McDonald said, because ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a backer of Soviet-style communism.
As director of the ACLU in 1934, Baldwin wrote an article entitled "Freedom in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." in which he said "the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world."
"The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America," McDonald said in a statement.
The scene will also have a "terrorist shepherd" and an angel with Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi's face, using a photograph of the soon-to-be speaker of the House from San Francisco
"The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy Americans' rights to the free expression of religion," said the Young Conservatives' Executive Director Joseph Wyly.
Wyly pointed to the city of Chicago's decision this week to ban advertisements for "The Nativity Story" movie from a local Christmas festival, fearing they might offend non-Christians.
"It's just more evidence that there is a war on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country," he said.

Hmm. At first I was very disturbed by this, then I chuckled, now I'm just not sure. It's kind of humorous, and fairly telling, but I just don't know--isn't desecrating the Nativity still desecrating the Nativity, even when it's done to make a point about, well, desecrating the Nativity?

Technorati tags: Holidays, Political-Correctness, ACLU

'Lil Brother gets it right

2006-12-01T08:20:00.001-05:00

My (soon to be) fourteen year old brother started a blog a couple months-or-so ago. He doesn't post too much other than his daily life, but occasionally he'll do a universally interesting post. Here's a clip of one from yesterday:

Speaking of Christmas and Christianity do you no how well the ACLU likes us? To answer this question let us take a quick trip to the western USA. IN the Desert there is a lonely cross that sits upon a mountain top looking over the dry valley below. This cross was built as a reminder of the first people who crossed the harsh desert with little more that the clothes on their back and their faith. SO what does the ACLU do to this monument? They build a giant plywood box and through over this lonely cross, so all you can see is he base of it. But wait there's more! Not only have they desecrated this monument but they are trying to keep the Nativity Story's trailer from running in a Boston movie marketwhich is supporting the true meaning of Christmas. Hmmmm, does Christ have nothing to do with Christmas. Or is this new commercial "X-mas" of fake pink trees, Santa's on the slim fast diet,and selfish people only worried about themselves, taking over our holidays.

Kind of hits the nail on the head, no? Well written and quite straight forward. No mixed messages here!

Listen to 'da 'pundit

2006-11-30T22:05:00.001-05:00

A couple of days ago, I posted on the possibility of the first Muslim representative in the House being sworn in on the Koran rather than the Bible. Instapundit has some thought on this as well:

I'M WATCHING EUGENE VOLOKH AND DENNIS PRAGER on this topic -- of which I was only vaguely aware -- of whether newly-elected Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison should take his oath of office on a Bible or on the Koran. Volokh seems to have the better of this argument by a huge margin. In fact, I think that Prager's argument that oaths must be on the Bible is absolutely nonsensical. But weirdly Paula Zahn keeps cutting Eugene off. I'm sorry, but Prager's reference to "the American Bible" as the root of the Constitution is ridiculous. What's "the American Bible?" And whatever happened to that bit from the Constitution about "no religious test"?

I think he makes a good point. Again, I'd like to have incoming officials be sworn in on the Bible, but if they're non-believers, then they should be given the option to be sworn in using the Constitution. Maybe that's just me?

Our courts have time (and money) for this?

2006-11-30T19:39:00.001-05:00

For crying out loud! Amidst all the immigration reform talks of the past few months, there was much discussion of the impracticality of trying every illegal alien that was caught through our court system. There seemed to be general agreement that there was time nor money sufficient enough for such an approach. Yet our courts have enough time to hear this case brought to our attention via the Drudge Report:

Guacamole lawsuit: Where's the avocado?
The Associated Press
Posted November 30 2006, 8:24 AM EST

LOS ANGELES -- Wholly guacamole?

That's the issue in a fraud lawsuit filed Wednesday against Kraft Foods, Inc., by a Los Angeles woman who claims the company's avocado dip doesn't qualify as guacamole.

"It just didn't taste avocadoey," said Brenda Lifsey, who used Kraft Dips Guacamole in a three-layer dip last year. "I looked at the ingredients and found there was almost no avocado in it."

She is seeking unspecified damages and a Superior Court order barring Kraft from calling its dip guacamole. Her suit seeks class-action status.

The Kraft product contains modified food starch, coconut and soybean oils, corn syrup and food coloring. It is less than 2 percent avocado, which in traditional recipes is the main ingredient of the Mexican dish.

The government doesn't have any requirements on how much avocado a product must contain to be labeled guacamole, said Michael Herndon, a spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Northfield, Ill.-based Kraft said it had not seen the lawsuit but believed it was not deceiving anyone.

"We think customers understand that it isn't made from avocado," Claire Regan, Kraft Foods' vice president of corporate affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. "All of the ingredients are listed on the label for consumers to reference."

However, the company will relabel the product to make it clearer that the dip is guacamole-flavored, Regan said.

We can only hope this vicious guacamole-like product will be removed from shelves immediately.

I had intended to post on this report from Wizbang that a woman was allegedly raped by a man who she met via an online dating site, but this was just too good to not post. What is wrong with people. Idiots.

Technorati tags: Other, US News

Tryin' 'er out

2006-11-30T11:02:00.001-05:00

*Updated

I just downloaded the Windows Live Writer blogging software, so I figured I'd give it a quick try.

Exams and essays will be hindering my ability to post for the remainder of the day, but I will try to be back at some point this evening or tomorrow morning with an update.

*so it appears that this beast works quite well, including a fully functional Technorati tag component. Nice. Very nice. For anybody who has used Windows Live Writer and has some tips, feel free to leave a comment!

The real trick I've had with programs in the past has been block quoting, so let us see how block quoting works, using a portion of an essay I recently wrote:

The significant role of emotions in literature extended also to Romantic music through the works of such musical giants as Ludwig van Beethoven and Joseph Haydn. Even today, music allows composer, performer and audience alike to allow individual emotions and insights to find meaning in each note, chord and movement, enabling us to, “pierce the innermost mystery of the universe.”[1] It should be of no surprise that Romantics would be drawn to the power of music which has the ability to, “convey an infinite range of impressions, feelings and thoughts [making it] the ideal art of Romanticism.”[2]

Wow, it even includes a footnote editor!! So far so good...

[1] J.L. Talmon, Romanticism and Revolt: Europe 1815-1848 (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1967), 147.

[2] Talmon, 146.

Technorati tags: Other

A complicated issue

2006-11-29T08:33:00.000-05:00

This is bound to get the ACLU all upset. Sister Toldjah covers the new Dennis Prager column discussing the possibility of using the Koran to swear in freshman representative Keith Ellison (D-MN). Here's his column as posted on Sister Toldjah:

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of “Dianetics” by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done — choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious — Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely:
Ellison’s doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America.

This is a complicated issue, no? On the one hand, why would we feel more comfortable about any person--Muslim, Jew, Satanist or atheist--taking an oath with his/her hand on the Bible if this individual does not believe in the words that are held within it? They might as well take the oath with a hand on the garbage can.

On the other hand, I feel even less comfortable if a person takes the oath on a book whose contents I do not A) know B) agree with or C) fully understand. Mr. Prager posed the idea of a racist wanting to swear himself in on Mein Kampf. This is problematic because, though few of us have read it, most of us understand that this is not something we want our representatives swearing to uphold. A complicated issue indeed.

But have no fear, for I have a solution. If folks do not want to take their oath with a hand on the Bible, why not have use the Constitution? Just an idea...other thoughts?

2006-11-27T16:11:00.001-05:00

Technorati Profile

Can't we just have movies?

2006-11-27T15:35:00.000-05:00

Without political overtones? Apparently not. From Stones Cry Out:

Mocking Religion, Happy Feet is Not a Friendly Little Film

I can't remember coming out of movie theater more furious than I did this Thanksgiving holiday after watching the animated and PG-rated Happy Feet. With relatives visiting from around the country, how could we go wrong taking both kids and adults to a cute little penguin story with lots of singing and dancing, with warm and fuzzy animal themes?

I'm not a movie prude; we check out many kinds of movies. And I expect lost anything coming out of Hollywood, with any rating, to include something contrary to my values. I let most of it roll off my back. But with Happy Feet, I didn't expect my conservative Christian family to be assaulted with what we all recognized as a anti-Christian screed, with open mockery of traditional Christian preaching against values and lifestyles contrary to church teachings. It was abundantly clear that Happy Feet substituted homosexuality with dancing as the "different" lifestyle that was the unfair target of an Inquisition on ice. It was Dirty Dancing and Footloose all over again, but with the rhetoric and situation developed to make religious criticism of homosexuality counter to everything good and pleasing.

Did they think Christians wouldn’t notice? I suppose the creators just didn’t care. We had four families attending Happy Feet, with children of all ages. Independently, parents concluded during the film that they would walk out if it wouldn’t be a disruption to others in the large group of family members who had come to the movies together.

Clearly, we should have all left together.

The creators of Happy Feet should have taken less time mocking Christians and more time making sense out of the wild leaps at the end of the film, when the dancing penguin so impresses crowds in the aquarium that they release him back into the wild. And when the community of penguins gets happy feet, the commentators of the world decide its time to stop disrupting their food supply. (Of course the humans are to blame for all the animal woes; a long movie-making tradition that goes back to Bambi).

Wild leaps, even with happy feet.

For Christians who have not seen Happy Feet and are considering it as a friendly, family film—make another choice. This film is not good for children or families, and it is another Hollywood example of open mockery of Christian traditions.

Now I have not seen this film, and I have no plans to see it, nor did I have plans to see it before this scathing review. Still, I can't help but wonder if Mr. Jim is reading too much into the film? I somehow doubt it, though.

Changes in change?

2006-11-27T12:20:00.000-05:00

Apparently we Americans are about to see a change in our change. The new one dollar coin, set to be released in February '07, will relegate the phrase "In God We Trust" to the thin edge. From WND:

The new gold-colored dollar pieces, featuring images of U.S. presidents, will move the inscription from the face of the coin to the thin edge, along with the year and the previous national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "Out of Many, One."

The official reason for the design change? To allow space for larger portraits of the presidents on the face and the Statue of Liberty on the reverse, according to the Mint.

The new coins will be the same size as the 1979 Susan B. Anthony and the 2000-2002 Sacajawea.

For the first time the coin will also say "$1" instead of "One Dollar."

Images of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
are scheduled to appear on the coins in 2007, with a different president appearing every three months.

The series will honor four different presidents per year, in the order they served in office.

I don't like this one bit. I don't understand the need to change things like this. The relegation of "In God We Trust" at least makes sense--I mean, perhaps the nutso anti-God folks have taken over the treasury and are pushing to correct all the political uncorrectness that comes with trusting the Lord? But what about E Pluribus Unum? Who could that possibly be bothering, 'cuz I surely don't buy into the idea that the designers were simply trying to make more room for the Presidents' heads.

I'm not even sure why every few years we have this attempted return to the one dollar coin. Who cares? Ole George looks just fine on a wrinkly, tattered bill, doesn't he?

In other news

2006-11-27T08:12:00.000-05:00

The Shepherd Rams Football team has advanced to the Quarter finals. I was here Saturday for the game, and what a game it was. The Quarter finals will be hosted by Shepherd at Ram Stadium this Saturday. For anybody who cares, tickets are available at the Shepherd Bookstore.

A little something fun

2006-11-27T08:00:00.000-05:00

A little something fun to get the week started. Via the Anchoress:

What Kind of Reader Are You? Your Result: Dedicated Reader You are always trying to find the time to get back to your book. You are convinced that the world would be a much better place if only everyone read more.
Literate Good Citizen
Book Snob
Obsessive-Compulsive Bookworm
Fad Reader
Non-Reader
What Kind of Reader Are You? Create Your Own Quiz

I don't know how accurate this thing really is dedicated reader? yes, I think so...literate good citizen? Yea, I'd like to think so. Book snob? For the most part, I don't really get into those so called "fad books," I don't read much fiction and I'm pretty picky about my non-fiction. But OCD bookworm? No. I don't think so. I like to read, but sometimes I just don't feel like it! And most of what I read is in the form of periodicals and online blogs.

Here's another one:

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Midland "You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.
The West
Boston
North Central
The South
The Northeast
Philadelphia
The Inland North
What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes

I have a good accent for radio or TV! I'm not surprised about this one. I think it's a product of living in this particular area of WV. I'm too far north to get the Southern accent, but too far south to get the Northern accent and so I have some combination thereof.

Anyway, I'll try to post regularly over the next two weeks, but as the semester winds down, the intensity winds up and so I'll be very busy with tests, last minute assignments and a few end of the year essays.

Back with more later this morning...

Thanksgiving and squirrel stew

2006-11-23T09:57:00.000-05:00

Well here it is...Thanksgiving 2006. It still doesn't seem like it could possibly be Thanksgiving Day, although I know it is because it's 9:58, the house smells like deviled eggs and I've already made a pot of green beans.

At any rate, there is a lot to be thankful for this year. So here's to my family, friends, and my girlfriend. I'm also thankful for American soldiers who are protecting our freedom and this country, for God, for the Constitution and for the turkey and pumpkin pie I'm going to devour in just a couple of hours.

For a special Thanksgiving treat, here's the Swedish Chef preparing some delicious squirrel stew. Yum.

Be safe and have a happy Thanksgiving Day.

A little History

2006-11-23T09:30:00.000-05:00

I thought it might be worth while to take a quick look at this history of Thanksgiving according to Wikpedia:

In the United States, certain kinds of food are traditionally served at Thanksgiving meals. First and foremost, turkey is usually the featured item on any Thanksgiving feast table (so much so that Thanksgiving is sometimes referred to as “Turkey Day”). Stuffing, mashed potatoes with gravy, sweet potatoes, cranberry sauce, Indian corn, other fall vegetables, and pumpkin pie are also commonly associated with Thanksgiving dinner.
On Thanksgiving Day, families and friends usually gather for a large meal or dinner. This results in Thanksgiving holiday weekend being one of the busiest travel periods of the year.
In New York City, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is held annually every Thanksgiving Day in Midtown Manhattan. The parade features parade floats with specific themes, scenes from Broadway plays, large balloons of cartoon characters and TV personalities, and high school marching bands. The float that traditionally ends the Macy's Parade is the Santa Claus float. This float is a sign that the Christmas season has begun.

[...]

The American winter holiday season (generally the Christmas shopping season in the U.S.) traditionally begins when Thanksgiving ends, on "Black Friday" (the day after Thanksgiving); this tradition has held forth since at least the 1930s.

[...]

American football is often a major part of Thanksgiving celebrations in the U.S.

[...]

The first official Thanksgiving was held in the Virginia Colony on December 4, 1619 near the current site of Berkeley Plantation, where celebrations are still held each year in November.[1]

The Pilgrims were particularly thankful to Squanto, the Indian who taught them how to catch eel, grow corn and who served as an interpreter for them (Squanto had learned English on a previous trip to Europe). Without Squanto's help the Pilgrims might not have survived in the new world. The Pilgrims set apart a day to celebrate at Plymouth immediately after their first harvest, in 1621. At the time, this was not regarded as a Thanksgiving observance; harvest festivals were existing parts of English and Wampanoag tradition alike. Several American colonists have personal accounts of the 1621 feast in Massachusetts:

[...]

During the American Revolutionary War the Continental Congress appointed one or more thanksgiving days each year, except in 1777, each time recommending to the executives of the various states the observance of these days in their states.

George Washington, leader of the revolutionary forces in the American Revolutionary War, proclaimed a Thanksgiving in December 1777 as a victory celebration honoring the defeat of the British at Saratoga. The Continental Congress proclaimed annual December Thanksgivings from 1777 to 1783, except in 1782.

George Washington again proclaimed Thanksgivings, as President, in 1789 and 1795.

[...]

In the middle of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, prompted by a series of editorials written by Sarah Josepha Hale, proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day, to be celebrated on the final Thursday in November 1863.

[...]

In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that Thanksgiving would be the next-to-last Thursday of November rather than the last. With the country still in the midst of The Great Depression, Roosevelt thought this would give merchants a longer period to sell goods before Christmas. Increasing profits and spending during this period, Roosevelt hoped, would aid bringing the country out of the Depression. At the time, it was considered inappropriate to advertise goods for Christmas until after Thanksgiving. However, Roosevelt's declaration was not mandatory; twenty-three states went along with this recommendation, and 22 did not. Other states, like Texas, could not decide and took both weeks as government holidays. Roosevelt persisted in 1940 to celebrate his "Franksgiving," as it was termed. The U.S. Congress in 1941 split the difference and established that the Thanksgiving would occur annually on the fourth Thursday of November, which was sometimes the
last Thursday and sometimes the next to last. On November 26 that year President Roosevelt signed this bill into U.S. law.

President Truman receiving a Thanksgiving turkey from members of the Poultry and Egg National Board and other representatives of the turkey industry, outside the White House. Since 1947, or possibly earlier, the National Turkey Federation has presented the President of the United States with one live turkey and two dressed turkeys. The live turkey is pardoned and lives out the rest of its days on a peaceful farm. While it is commonly held that this tradition began with Harry Truman in 1947, the Truman Library has been unable to find any evidence for this. Still others claim that that the tradition dates back to Abraham Lincoln pardoning his son's pet turkey.[2] Both stories have been quoted in more recent presidential speeches.
In more recent years, two turkeys have been pardoned, in case the original turkey becomes unavailable for presidential pardoning. Since 2003 the public has been invited to vote for the two turkeys' names. In 2006, they were named Flyer and Fryer. In 2005, they were named Marshmallow and Yam (who went on to live at Disneyland); 2004's turkeys were named Biscuit and Gravy; in 2003, Stars and Stripes.

So there is a little history on the most delicious day of the year. But there is one more thing I'd like to note. Lincoln, who is sometimes credited as the individual who established the traditional Thanksgiving menu when he proclaimed it the Thanksgiving dinner for Union troops during the Civil War, issued a proclamation The entire proclomation can be seen here. Here are clips:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

[...]

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.

And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable...strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

A beautiful reminder of what we need to do at this time of year from one of our greatest presidents.

Does it mean we should never trust them with anything important?

2006-11-22T10:40:00.000-05:00

Via Common Sense and Wonder:

Democratic political strategist Pat Caddell is one angry man. His is not the anger, however, of a typical partisan, seething at his opponents and gloating in their defeat on November 7th. Rather, Mr. Caddell is furious with the Republican leadership for allowing his party to win both houses of Congress at what he rightly sees is a desperate moment in our nation’s history. President Bush and what is left of the GOP on Capitol Hill and around the country would do well to heed this skilled operative’s critique — and the insights it provides for the way ahead in such a dangerous time of war.

On Sunday, before a capacity crowd at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida, the former advisor to George McGovern and Jimmy Carter depicted the election as one the Republicans lost more
than the Democrats won. Above all else, the GOP failed to run on the issue that resonated most effectively, not only with their own base but with independent voters and even some Democrats: the grave nature of the conflict we are in, and
the extent to which the Democratic Party and its senior officials cannot be trusted to manage it.Far from making this case forcefully, consistently and at every level of the 2006 campaign, the Republicans allowed their opponents politically to define the “war” strictly in terms of Iraq. Such a dumbing-down of the subject — largely ignoring the global threat posed to the entire Free World by Islamofascists and their enablers — had several undesirable effects.

[...]

Mr. Caddell noted that Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s victory emonstrates it did not have to be this way. Despite his loss in the Democratic primary, the Connecticut senator ran as an independent on a platform that unapologetically rejected cutting-and-running from Iraq. He offered his constituents a well-reasoned, and accurate, assessment of the larger war we are in and the implications for it of our loss of Iraq. As Mr. Caddell sees it, the failure of too many Republican Party leaders and candidates to do as Joe Lieberman did and “put the country first” out of a belief that “they could rely on getting out the vote and the hell with the issues” has led to our present pass.The longtime Democratic operative’s rage is particularly intense because he knows the sort of people to whom our future security is now being entrusted. He expressed deep concern that Nancy Pelosi would be, as Speaker of the House, two heartbeats away from the presidency, saying she is someone who is no more prepared to be Commander-in-Chief than he would be to serve as an astronaut on a lunar mission.

[...]

Now I have a couple of issues with this. First of all, if Mr. Caddell is to be seen as sincere, then what does this mean for the Democratic Party? It sounds to me that Caddell is saying--quite clearly--that the Dems cannot be trusted on the single most important issue of my life time--preserving the free world by defeating terrorism. If they can't be trusted on the important issues, then A) why vote them into office B) why trust them with any issue and C) why even bother allowing the party to continue to exist if it is so useless?

My second issue is the belief that the R's didn't do just what Caddell is arguing--they framed the election around the war on terror. They--we--framed it as a vote for cutting-and-running or staying the course. And the voters apparently didn't want to 'stay the course' so they changed it by handing the Congress over to the Democrats. How can anyone argue otherwise?

Finally, and this is going to shock some people, fear that Nancy Pelosi is not Presidential material though she is just "two heart beats" away from the job is not reason enough to NOT support the Democrats. Now I don't care for Pelosi and she certainly wouldn't be my choice, but does anyone believe that Dennis "I looked into the scandal and it wasn't a big deal" Hastert would have been better suited to be President on a whim? I don't. I don't for one minue. I don't believe that a single member of the House of Representatives would be ready to take over the presidency tomorrow if they had to, regardless of parties.

Yet the biggest of this three issues seems, to me, to be why the Democrats continue to exist if they can't be trusted. I suppose we'll see A) if they can be trusted and if not then B) if they can continue to exist after these next two years.

Back

2006-11-20T19:02:00.000-05:00

Last week was hellish...only posted once! Along with not posting, I also was unable to read a single blog all week. My newsreader is probably backlogged unbelievably, but I wouldn't know because I haven't checked...

One thing that happened last week which I'd like to make everyone aware of is that the town of Shepherdstown...my home away from home...became the first municipality in West Virginia to sign on to the Kyoto Treaty. Here's the report:

SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. (AP) — Shepherdstown has become the only municipality in coal-producing West Virginia to support a global greenhouse gas agreement. Town Council voted Tuesday to sign on to the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, which asks state and federal governments to uphold the standards of the Kyoto Protocol, which obliges 35 industrial nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

‘‘We feel it’s very important to try and meet the Kyoto protocols,’’ Shepherdstown Councilman Frank Salzano said Thursday.

‘‘We have broad support among the community and the council.’’

The United States and Australia are the only major industrialized countries to reject the Kyoto Protocol. As of Wednesday, 330 mayors across the country had signed on to the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement.

The agreement commits local governments to meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities through urban forest reforestation, land-use policies aimed at curbing sprawl and other initiatives. It also states that local governments will continue to urge state and federal legislators to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels is the biggest of the greenhouse gases. West Virginia is the second largest coal producing state in the nation.

What they are going to regulate--aside from possibly the city sewage plant--I dont' know. There is no industry in Shepherdstown. No coal. No oil. No manufactoring. Nothing--unless of course they're finally going to tell China Kitchen that the smell of Chinese food at 9a.m. is not a good thing.

This is a prime example of government wasting time and diverting attention from the issues (which, in Shepherdstown means UNIVERSITY PARKING). Good grief.

Even the toons are politicized nowadays...

2006-11-13T08:35:00.000-05:00

As per the usual course of events on any given evening, I came back to my dorm last weekend to find 'Family Guy' on and my roomie and his girlfriend watching intently as if the show really mattered in the grand scheme of things. Now I'm not a fan of the show, but sometimes it does have a funny clip or two and I do on occasion find myself laughing. Not last week.

I sat down last Sunday night to write an entry on how disgusted I was at the anti-military themes expressed in the show. As I read back over what I was complaining about, I though perhaps I was just being petty, and so I never finished or posted the entry. Friday night I deleted it from my 'drafts' folder. This morning, though, I find that Michelle Malkin has finished what I started complete with videos on anti-military themes in the questionable Family Guy episode, was well as in the Simpsons. Go read it, watch the video and decide for thine selves...

God Bless Them

2006-11-10T08:46:00.000-05:00

No Friday Funny today--though I'll file this post as such. Instead, I have a video saluting our veterans to post.

First, as always, the week in review:

Now the video. Thank God for all of our brave men and women who fight and die for the continuation of this country. Enjoy the video:

Good weekends for everybody! Be safe.

This just in?

2006-11-09T06:40:00.000-05:00

First of all, I did not know until late this afternoon that Rumy had, um, resigned? (Forced to resigned? Fired? Let go? Terminated?) While I am disappointed, the idea that Bush is throwing 'them dems' bone (which seems to me that that's all this is) is to be expected. I'll miss him and his no-nonsense ways which the dems so despised. (Let's stop and reflect for a moment, though, on the idea that such non-conventionalism was once celebrated in this country--Rummy was like a modern, right-wing, pro-military Walt Whitman. He was "the Republican's rude-tongue....).

Anyway, that's not the news story I just found about which I am quite thrilled. From NRO:

WASHINGTON (AP) Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told fellow Republican lawmakers on Wednesday he does not intend to run for minority leader when Democrats take control of the House in January, officials said.

Good. Vote for change? Maybe that wasn't a call for a direction of this nation, but rather a change in direction of the Republican Party? Well, they'll get it. From The Hotline blog:

The Hotline has learned that Maj. Leader John Boehner plans to run for Min. Leader. A formal announcement is expected within the next few days. A source close to Boehner says that several dozen House Republican members have called to express their support.

John Boehner seems like a good guy. Let's hope he is...

For those who care...

2006-11-08T12:18:00.000-05:00

Blogging from The Vent Pipe will be lighter than usual over the next week or so. The end of the term is quickly approaching and I have no less than four major projects/research papers to complete between now and next Friday. Three of them are partially completed, one of them has yet to be started. My two favorites are a project on "the effect of Romanticism on the development of Socialism in Europe," and a paper on the "atrocity that was Vietnam..." ok, so that's not the actual topic, but when that's all that has been discussed about that War, how else am I supposed to feel?

For anybody who reads, feel free to use this post as a sort of "open thread" to discuss election results, the War, hockey or even cheese making. Whatever comes to mind...

Our own new direction?

2006-11-08T08:15:00.000-05:00

A caller on Bill Bennett's morning show just called in to discuss the loss of Northup(?) as a representative in her state (Arizona?). She stated that she believes this woman lost not because of her own deficiencies as a representative, but instead because of the sort of "referendum for change" directed at George W. Bush. How sad. She also, though, says that she predicts voters will watch very closely as the democrats take control of the agenda and direction of this country and that if they do not significantly revert the current direction, the house will see another flip-flop in '08...Bennett also noted that many of the democrats who won are not "San-Fran democrats,' but are instead more to the conservative side.

So what does that mean? Will these conservative democrats stand on their conservative values and work hard for the agenda that they have promised? Or will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi club them over the head until they fall into the party line? I don't know. What I do know is that if the Republicans have to lose the senate, I'd rather it have gone to Harold Ford in Tennessee than to Ben Cardin in Maryland. I do know that I'm watching with great anticipation the race in Virginia, hoping and praying that Allen pulls through.

Anyway, I read this via Glenn Reynolds yesterday:

"What does it tell you about a political party if in a year of epic disaster for
their opponents the best they can hope for is a 51-49 majority in the Senate?"

I think the better question is not to attack the Democrats for not doing better, but to step back and ask ourselves why and how did we--the Republican party--lose seats in the Senate, the House and the Governorships during the middle of the most important war of my life (keep in mind I'm only 21), a soaring economy, a deficit that is 1/2 what it was projected to be at this point and with the Democratic leadership all looking like they should be thrown in an asylum. That's the question.

The Democrats have promised changed. How? Where? What are they going to change? Those are questions that I don't think voters really asked themselves. They're going to change an economy which is soaring? By rejected the Bush tax cuts when they come up for approval in '07? They're going to win the War on Terror? How? By creating a time table? If there weren't so much at stake, it would be fun to watch as the Democrats try to do better...but really, what options do they have.

Personally, I hope this comes as a wake up call to Republicans. I am not the sort of Reagan Republican that many are, and so I do not scream and cry when Bush spends out the wazoo, nor do I throw a tantrum when he adds government programs and/or initiatives and/or organizations. And so with that in mind, it is not a sort of resetting of the Republican party mindset to echo the old mentality that I am looking for. What I want to see is a loss of this sort of "Holier-than-though" mentality that some members of the Party have acquired. This should remind Republicans that at the end of the day, you (as a Senator or Representative) are accountable to the people.

Finally, I hope that the Republicans do not retain Denny Hastert in a leadership position. I am not recommending a replacement--though I should because we all know that The Vent Pipe is where all politicians turn for insight and ideas--but I truly hope that he is not retained. Considering the way he acted over the Jefferson scandal combined with his negligence regarding Foley, the Republicans will only be hurting themselves by keeping him. They need a new face and their own "new direction."

I guess we'll find out.

Will it all change?

2006-11-07T23:31:00.000-05:00

I'm going to bed right now. It's 11:33 according to my computer. The FoxNews site has just declared a victory for the Dems--they've apparently taken the House. Hello Speaker Pelosi, good God.

I can't help but fear that I'm going to wake up in the morning to see missiles flying through the air as terrorists invade and force me to put a turban on my head and grow a beard I can't help but imagine waking up to see that all my money--the little bit I have--has been taxed away. I can't help but imagine waking up to read that George Bush and Dick Cheney have both been impeached and Nancy friggin' Pelosi is the new President of the United States of America. I know that's dramatic, but I just can't help feeling that way. How long will it take to see the results of a democratic take over? I suppose we'll find out.

As a side note, I saw Michael Barone a few minutes ago say that he predicts that the Allen/Webb race will be too close to call and will result in a recount which could take up to 36 days (not sure where that number came from) to declare. With the way things look now, that could mean that it will take 36 days to know who will control the senate. It's terrible isn't it? God help us if the GOP holds the senate through a court case...it'll be another six years of the same bad jokes were heard about Bush being appointed by the judiciary. Good God.

And finally, thoughts and prayers and such for Michael Steele. It seems to close to call at this point. Let's go STEELE.

Howard Dean...

2006-11-07T21:11:00.000-05:00

...is so damn annoying. He was just on FoxNews and said that if the Democrats win, "the first thing we're going to do is reach out to everybody unlike the Bush administration." Isn't that a contradictory statement? "We're going to reach out to everybody...oh, except Bush and everybody who supports him.

One unrelated note--Bob Byrd just became the single winningest sentator ever...I wanted him to lose. Damn.

I'm confused...

2006-11-06T16:47:00.000-05:00

From the BREITBART.COM:

The New York Times called for the deferment of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's execution, saying Iraq had not received "full justice."

The newspaper, which is opposed to the death penalty, said Iraq not only needed to hold Saddam fully accountable for his atrocities but also to heal and educate the nation he "ruthlessly divided."

No real surprise here. But my issue isn't with the stance the NYT is taking, but rather the fact that it's taking a stance. How is a newspaper "against the death penalty?" I am opposed to this sort of thing. I am opposed to newspapers endorsing a candidate--whether Republican, Democrat or third party. What happened to the good ole days when the editorial page said, "the views expressed on these pages are strictly the opinions of the writers and do not reflect the opinions of the NYT (or whatever newspaper it happens to be)?" I just don't get it... How are we to feel that we're getting a straight story if the newspaper is already slanted in favor of one group or another. There are no reporters any more, only commentators and analysts.

Governor Perry...telling it like it is?

2006-11-06T16:34:00.000-05:00

From WND:

Texas incumbent Gov. Rick Perry says he agrees with the Christian belief that non-Christians will be condemned to hell, prompting a rival in this week's gubernatorial election to declare the Republican "doesn't think very differently from the Taliban."

Perry said in a report in the Dallas Morning News that he agreed with the Christian principle as stated by Cornerstone Church pastor John Hagee that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.
"If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket," Hagee said during a 90-minute service in San Antonio in which Perry was introduced to the megachurch's congregation.
Asked if he agreed with Hagee, Perry told the Dallas paper, " In my faith, that's what it says, and I'm a believer of that."

"I don't know that there's any human being that has the ability to interpret what God and his final decision-making is going to be," Perry said later. "That's what the faith says. I understand, and my caveat there is that an all-knowing God certainly transcends my personal ability to make that judgment black and white.

[...]

"He doesn't think very differently from the Taliban, does he?" Kinky Friedman, an independent candidate for governor, told the Morning News.

"Being obsessed with who's going to heaven and who's going to hell is kind of a pathetic waste of time," he said.

Another independent, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, disagreed with Perry,opting for a multi-path religious belief.

"There are many ways to heaven. We're all sinners, and we're all God's children," she told the Morning News.

Chris Bell, a Democrat, called himself a Christian, too. But he said God is the only one who came make such decisions.

"I'm a Christian," he told the paper. "Rick Perry certainly is entitled to his beliefs, but when you're in public office, you need to respect people of all faiths and denominations."

Perry said the acceptance of Christ is what his faith teaches, and he could not abandon that any more than anyone can pick which of the Ten Commandments to follow.

A couple of thoughts on this. As a side note, I think John Hagee is a great Pastor. I've been a 'fan' of him for a long time--since eighth grade actually, but that's not really the issue. The bigger issue is whether or not Perry was right in what he said, and from where I stand, he certainly was.

Christianity dictates that through Christ and Christ alone will we reach heaven. What was he supposed to say? Naturally he's gotten beaten up for this. But those who are attacking him have it all wrong.

Mr. Friedman clearly does not see the bigger picture if he thinks Perry's statements somehow equate him with the Taliban. Perry has his beliefs, but he, unlike Taliban leaders, is not advocating that Texas become a Christian-only state where all must follow Christian religious rules and regulations. He is not outlawing other religions, is he then?

As for Ms. Strayhorns comments--if one is a Christian, than that individual cannot advocate the sort of "multi-pathed" way to heaven that she speaks of. Christianity is clear on that--it is not through a cow, through Buddha or through Muhammad that we can reach heaven, but through Christ. That is just the way it is.

Kudos to Mr. Perry for sticking to his beliefs and not 'cutting and running' from a question that could potentially have political consequences.

So here it is...

2006-11-06T07:56:00.000-05:00

One of the historical arguments against abortions--particularly late term abortions--has been that such openness to terminating human life as late as the third trimester could lead to a call for termination of life immediately after birth. And here it is:

LONDON -- A leading British medical college has called on the health profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has said that "active euthanasia" should be considered to spare parents the emotional and financial burdens of bringing up such children.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," it says in a formal submission. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

Morals aside, there are present at least a few problems in this short passage alone . Firstly, what is "very disabled?" Will that be a term defined by doctors at the time of birth? What if the disability is caused by the doctor during the birth? How much proof will a doctor have to provide to "prove" that the killed child had a 'qualifying disability?' Secondly, the 'informal submission' claims that this procedure will prevent late term abortions. If these children aren't going to be considered "aborted babies," then what do we call them? Beyond that, the argument in favor of abortion is often that the "fetus isn't a child, but a developing children, and since it is developing and therefore dependent on the mother's body to survive, it must be the mothers choice." If we are going to allow, to quote directly from the 'informal submission, "interventions to kill infants," where do we draw the line?

The call comes in the college's submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is conducting an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborns. The submission states: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management of options available to the sickest of newborns."

It is not officially calling for the introduction of active euthanasia, but wants it openly debated. The proposal has been supported by several leading geneticists and medical ethicists.

Joy Delhanty, a professor of human genetics at University College London, said: "I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health."

But John Wyatt, a consultant neonatalologist at University College London hospital, called the proposal "social engineering."

"Once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice, you change the fundamental nature of medicine," he said.

This should not be a debate. It is utterly despicable that such horrific ideas should even be brought up for debate. Abortion has lead us to a complete and total devaluation of human life to the point where we now are debating whether or not it is morally OK to murder a child once he or she (the culture of abortion that I have grown up in has labelled babies as "it" as a generic term. I think this is probably an intentional attempt to paint the child as being less than human.) has been born. It is simply shocking and disgusting. How long before this debate leaves Great Britain and is taken up by our own Liberal "progressives?" God help us.

Early Voting

2006-11-04T14:43:00.000-05:00

I just got back a few minutes ago from the Hampshire County Courthouse, where I took part in the new "No Excuse" early voting for the first time ever. I knew I wouldn't have time to drive back from school on Tuesday to vote (because our university isn't closed). I opted to use the old fashioned pen and paper ballot rather than the electronic voting. Also, I couldn't believe that the officials didn't ask for any identification at all. They asked my name, I told them, I signed a card, and cast my ballot. I won't reveal my votes, but I'm sure most people know :)

Rangers win, week in review and weekend in preview

2006-11-03T08:23:00.000-05:00

No Friday Funny today. I have a psych exam--a major psych exam--today and don't have time to go searching for something that is funny, even if I'm the only person who thinks so. Even though I'm going to go ahead and post this as I "Friday Funny", instead, I give you this:

The New York Rangers defeated the Anaheim Ducks Wednesday night in overtime with a beautiful goal from Jaromir Jagr, otherwise known simply as "the damn man." Last night, they finally kept the score low (3-1) and pulled out a win over dominating San Jose. Let us hope that this is a turn around from what we've seen the last few weeks, and that NYR is about to begin dominating the league like they did last November.

Now the week in review:

Why to vote Republican, Nov 7
Wolf Blitzer, Lynn Cheney and "The Smackdown"
Genital mutilation
Patriotic assassination?
Christian boy murdered
Picket Column: Why the Republicans will hold the Congress in '06
The joke's on him

I'll be finishing this exam this afternoon, but with three research projects due in the next two weeks, I don't know that my schedule will really be that much improved. This weekend I'll be attending the Berkeley County WV Eisenhower Dinner in Martinsburg, WV where Congresswoman Shelly Moore-Capito will be the keynote speaker. I'll post general impressions if I feel up to it.

Kerry. Oh, Kerry.

2006-11-03T07:52:00.000-05:00

I was asked by one of the editor's over at the Picket to write up a quick 500-600 words on Kerry's idiocy (OK, it was actually put like this: "Would you be interested in writing a quick column on John Kerry's verbal mistake?"). Obviously the editor--like all but one of them--is very far left. Here's what I had to say, though the column will not appear in "the press" until next Tuesday or Wednesday:

It is hard to assess who has been the Republicans’ biggest friend this year, Howard Dean or John Kerry. One thing is for sure though, whenever one of these guys beings to speak, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman can bank on it hurting the Democrats. The latest round of “open mouth, insert foot” comes courtesy of John Kerry. In his speech on October 31, 2006, John Kerry said, “You know, education, if you make the most if it, study hard and do your homework and make an effort to be smart, you do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” The remarks have been met with utter disdain from both sides of the political isle, yet Kerry refuses to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong. Instead, he opts to suggest that his verbal blunder was a “botched” joke about President Bush, rather than a blatant insult of our troops.

The idea that Kerry would challenge Mr. Bush’s intelligence is also humorous. If we are to believe that Kerry’s remarks were somehow a botched joke aimed at questioning the intelligence and/or success of President Bush, then it would be fair to assess this joke in one simple word: bad. For Kerry to call Bush unintelligent is in and of itself a joke when we consider that, according to a 2005 Boston Globe article, Bush’s academic record at Yale comes in just ahead of Kerry’s, though both of them were merely ‘C’ students. When we couple this with the fact that the ‘unintelligent’ and therefore ‘unsuccessful’ Bush defeated Kerry in the 2004 election, it seems safe to say that Kerry himself is the real joke.

For fairly obvious reasons, the Republican Party has sharply criticized Kerry for both his statements and his refusal to apologize. Arizona Republican Senator John McCain demanded an apology from Kerry, “Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country’s call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education.” President Bush echoed McCain’s sentiments, adding, “The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer Armed Forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots -- and Senator Kerry owes them an apology.” While both McCain and Bush certainly are justified in their indignation, it is difficult for me to believe that even John Kerry, of whom I am certainly no friend, would purposely criticize the soldiers just days before a midterm election in such a public manner. However, I must say that I cannot completely rule out the possibility that Kerry committed a Freudian slip, revealing to the public what he truly thinks about our men and women in the armed service.

It has been touted that the Republicans’ are attempting to politicize Kerry’s statement in order to “avoid discussion of the issues.” Aside from the fact that criticism of the troops is itself an issue, we must ask what, then, is the motivation behind Kerry’s fellow Democrats criticizing his statements?" Montana’s Democratic candidate John Tester criticized Kerry’s remarks as, “were poorly worded and just plain stupid." He, along with candidates in Pennsylvania and in Iowa have dropped Kerry from their list of campaign speakers.

Whether the last in a string of “2006 October Surprises” will have any impact at the polls on November 7th won’t truly be seen until next week, it has reiterated the importance of the election. It has highlighted the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Where Republicans are clearly on the side of the United States Armed Forces, the Democrats and their failed 2004 candidate are “questionable at best.”

Feel free to leave feedback on this story.

Why the Republicans will hold the Senate...and the House

2006-11-01T08:11:00.000-05:00

My Picket column was published yestarday, which means I can now feel ok about posting it here:

Disgruntled GOP voters are threatening harsh action against the Republican Party which they believe has failed to represent them accurately in the twelve years since Newt Gingrich’s triumphant seizure of the United States Congress in 1994. They have fallen prey to what Washington Times writer Tony Blankley calls a “false syllogism.” They say, “1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote.” He says this is as stupid as if, “When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, [one] insists on paying the full factory recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.”

Examination of the voter displeasure with the incumbent party can be focused on two specific items: the reason or cause of such disgruntlement, and the potential impact this “voter revenge” could have at the polls on November 7, 2006. First, we shall examine the source of unhappiness: Certainly, voters have a valid and understandable source for disproval when we consider the recent happenings in what the “main-stream media” has so affectionately dubbed ‘Foley-gate.’ Record spending (even if the deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of Bush’s schedule—something the media has paid virtually no attention to) also can be cited as a trouble spot. Despite calls for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the American immigration crisis—and make no mistake, it is a crisis—the Republican controlled Congress has a nearly non-existent immigration policy which adds to the anger. When we couple all of this with the belief that progress in Iraq is being bogged down, who can blame the average conservative voter for being less than enthused about sending the Republicans back to Congress?

So what we have here is a vague and generalized disapproval of the decisions made in Congress. Republicans are certainly not perfect, but conservative voters must consider the alternative? If they—we—are angry with GOP members in the House and Senate, we certainly should let our voices be heard, but to think that we’d be happier with the decisions made in a Congress controlled by the Democrats (with Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency) is asinine. Rush Limbaugh has dubbed conservatives who believe that we should simply abstain from voting because we are angry as “cut and run conservatives.” He notes, “sit this one out if you’re unhappy with anything the President, House or Senate has done… show your patriotism by teaching them all a lesson….wait until you like everything Republicans do before you ever vote again.” Any conservative who acts in such a manner is exactly what Limbaugh has dubbed them: cut and run.

The real impact of this behavior will be seen on Decision Day 2006, when all truly patriotic Americans will head to the polls to cast their judgment on the Republican majority. Polls seem to indicate a slight lead for Democratic candidates in tight races, giving them a slight edge in predictions for the House. By most accounts, the Senate will remain in control of a slim majority of Republicans. These polls have led the majority of the main-stream media to declare victory for the Democrats and to say that such a victory is indicative of frustration throughout America at “corrupt Republicans.” Not all predictions are tilted in the Democrats’ favor, though. Barron’s Online Magazine says polls have it wrong. Based on race-by-race examination of campaign contributions, the report suggests that Republicans will maintain control of the House by one to eight seats and of the Senate by two to five seats. Examining campaign contributions, the report suggests, is the best way to examine grassroots support. The report accurately predicted Republican gains in 2002 and 2004. According to other statistics cited in the report, the candidate with the biggest campaign war-chest has one 98% of the elections in recent years.

The media has been quick to label this election a victory for the Democrats based on the widely held belief that the angry conservative base will abstain from voting. To believe that conservative electorate will fall victim to Blankley’s “false syllogism” is to assume that Republicans are stupid, but Republican voters aren’t stupid, and they won’t fall victim to such a fallacy. The conservative base will go to the polls on November 7. Conservatives, unlike some others, understand that there is too much at stake to risk allowing Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House. Conservatives understand that, though they might not like every choice Republicans make, these choices are better than the alternative—or lack there of—offered by Democrats. It is because of this knowledge that the Republicans will maintain control of the United States Congress and will be poised to retain the Presidency in 2008.

Christian boy murdered

2006-10-31T06:37:00.000-05:00

Another horrible atrocity in Iraq. This time against a young Christian boy. From WND:

A website in Assyria is confirming that a 14-year-old Christian boy who was working a 12-hour shift maintaining an electric generator has been murdered by Muslim insurgents.

The Assyrian International News Agency said the tragedy was reported by an Assyrian language web page at http://www.ankawa.com./

The youth was identified as Ayad Tariq, who lived in Baqouba, Iraq, and was at work on Oct. 21 when a group of "disguised Muslim insurgents" went into the power plant shortly after his shift began at 6 a.m.

The website reported the insurgents asked him for his identification and, according to other witnesses who hid and stayed alive to report on the attack, questioned his identification card's reference to him as a "Christian."

Are you truly a "Christian sinner," they asked.

"Yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner," he replied.

The insurgents then called him a "dirty Christian sinner," grabbed his limbs and held them while beheading him, the witnesses reported.

[...]

Current estimates are that there are about 2.5 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq.

Kenneth Scott LaTourette wrote in "A History of Christianity" that the Assyrian Christians became the first nation to accept Christianity, and one of the largest missionary-sending peoples in Christian history.

"The Assyrian Christians are one of the last remaining Christian communities in the Middle East," said Rev. Ken Joseph Jr., of the Assyrian Christians organization.

Tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians have fled their traditional homelands in recent months, officials confirmed.

Now I suppose there are two ways to look at this. The first is to say, "My God, that poor boy was the same age as my little brother." With that in mind, I suppose I could say that this is just horrific. Then I could ask, "Is this what we're fighting for? A people that would behead a 14 year-old boy because of his views? Isn't this enough? There's no way that people like that are deserving of any more of the blood of our soldiers. There is no hope for a nation that would routinely allow this to happen. This can no longer be our find.

Indeed this was my first reaction--how can we allow our troops to fight and die any longer for people like this, but looking at things through those lenses is reactionary. We cannot allow that actions of the terrorists--which is what these folks were, cold blooded, murdering terrorist monsters--to dictate our continuation of this mission. Yes, I know, that sounded like something straight out of a Bush speech, but it is the exact and definite truth. It is the simple fact.

Instead of seeing the abusers as the ones for which we are fighting, we have to identify with the abused. If we pull out, atrocities like this one will worsen in severity and frequency, neither of which is an acceptable outcome of a pullout by US authorities. For this brave young man, we must continue the fight. We cannot allow the terrorists to dictate our action. In the face of tragedy such as this, we cannot simply turn our tails and flee. To the contrary, in the face of such tragedy is exactly when we must strengthen our resolve. This should be a rallying point for Christians, whose brothers are being persecuted, and Americans, who should be highly concerned with the proliferation of one of the greatest American rights--freedom to worship as we please.

In Sean Hannity's TV interview with Bush last night, he asked the President if this was a war between good and evil. Mr. Bush said he thought it was. And it is. We cannot allow evil to triumph over good. It is just that simple.

'Patriotic Assassination?'

2006-10-30T20:26:00.000-05:00

From WND:

WASHINGTON – An anti-Semitic white supremacist who conducts an Internet radio show says if Americans return incumbents to Washington in the Nov. 7 election, he may just have to assassinate them.

Hal Turner describes himself as "outspoken, opinionated and brutally blunt." The biography on his website says he was a registered Republican until this month, when he changed his registration to unaffiliated.

If that's true, he has fallen hard and fast from the Republican ranks.

"As the November 7 Election approaches, I decided to write a few lines to my fellow Americans about the state of our nation and the ugliness that may have to occur if the people who caused these problems are re-elected: They may have to be assassinated," he writes in his Oct. 27 screed.

In his "Last Chance America" plea, he also says: "If you re-elect the same people who have gotten us into the mess we're in, folks like me may have to assassinate them!"
Turner lists his beefs with the government:
curtailment of political speech through campaign finance law restrictions;
killing innocent people in Iraq;
that members of Congress don't read the legislation they pass;
that elected officials ignore the will of the people;
that politicians lie to get themselves elected;
spending is breaking the nation's financial back;
disapproves of USA Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act of 2006;
eminent domain ruling jeopardizing property rights.
Turner evidently believes the time is right for a violent overthrow of the federal government because the U.S. military is so overextended around the world it would not be in a position to defend officials.
"In watching the military campaigns of the past 25 years, I have come to admire 'surgical strikes,'" he writes. "When force is applied in a specific, limited way, the results can be magnificent. Such is my HYPOTHETICAL thinking for our present circumstance."
He poses the hypothetical scenario that half the members of Congress represent "problems" – a total of 267. He also sees at least three "problems" on the Supreme Court.
"Imagine if you will, teams of 5 committed citizens each, who were fed up with these 'problems,'" he writes of the assassination squads he envisions. He says it can be done with just 1,350 "committed citizens."
"Do you think that in America, a nation of 300,000,000 people, there are 1,350 committed citizens willing to put it all on the line to 'correct' these 'problems' and thus save the nation?" he asks. "I do," he answers.
Turner even has a name for his kind of political mass murder: "It could be called 'patriotic assassination,'" he writes.
As if to cover his tracks, Turner also says he renounces and repudiates the use of force and violence to affect political change – "for now."
In closing, just remember, you may be willing to live under tyranny, but I am not. You may be willing to give up your rights, but I won't let you give up MY rights.
"I don't want to see such an attack against our government," he concludes. "I have no plans (at this time) to kill anybody. But I can – and I am willing to – if it comes down to it."
The Washington field office of the FBI did not return a phone call about the matter tonight.

Oh boy. This guy sounds like an outright nut, although in his bulleted list of grievances he does make a few good points, specifically 1) that members of Congress don't read the legislation they pass; and 2) eminent domain ruling jeopardizing property rights. That, however, does not by any means justify the action he ("hypothetically") suggests.

When action such as this is taken, it undermines the entire system of government which it proclaims to be saving. Need we go back and explain "The Terror" of the French Revolution? Wherein a few radicals took harsh action to "purge the government" of those who are not seen as being patriotic enough?

And these kind of folks say Bush is undermining our government?

Female genital mutilation

2006-10-30T15:38:00.000-05:00

Read this originally on Common Sense and Wonder, one of my favorite blogs. It originally appeared via the AP:

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. — The trial of an Atlanta-area father accused of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors is focusing attention on an ancient African practice that experts say is slowly becoming more common in the U.S. as immigrant communities grow.

Khalid Adem, a 30-year-old immigrant from Ethiopia, is charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Human rights observers said they believe this is the first criminal case in the U.S. involving the 5,000-year-old practice.

Prosecutors say Adem used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in their apartment in 2001. The child's mother said she did not discover it until more than a year later.

"He said he wanted to preserve her virginity," Fortunate Adem, the girl's mother, testified this week. "He said it was the will of God. I became angry in my mind. I thought he was crazy."
The girl, now 7, also testified, clutching a teddy bear and saying that her father "cut me on my private part."
Adem cried loudly as his daughter left the courtroom.

Testifying on his own behalf Friday, Adem said he never circumcised his daughter or asked anyone else to do so. He said he grew up in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and considers the practice more prevalent in rural areas.

[...]

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, using figures from the 1990 Census, estimated that 168,000 girls and women in the U.S. had undergone the procedure or were at risk of being subjected to it.

The State Department estimates that up to 130 million women worldwide had undergone circumcision as of 2001. Knives, razors or even sharp stones are usually used, according to a 2001 department report. The tools often are not sterilized, and often, many girls are circumcised at the same ceremony, leading to infection.

It is unknown how many girls have died from the procedure, either during the cutting or from infections, or years later in childbirth.

Nightmares, depression, shock and feelings of betrayal are common psychological side effects, according to the federal report.

The report estimated that 73 percent of women in Ethiopia had undergone the procedure, based on a 1997 survey.

Taina Bien-Aime, executive director of Equality Now, an international human rights group, said female circumcision is most widely practiced in a 28-country swath of Africa. She said more than 90 percent of women in Ethiopia are believed to have been subjected to the practice, and more in places like Egypt and Somalia.

"It is a preparation for marriage," Bien-Aime said. "If the girl is not circumcised, her chances of being married are very slim."

Federal law specifically bans the practice, but many states do not have a law addressing it. Georgia lawmakers, with the support of Fortunate Adem, passed an anti-mutilation law last year. Khalid Adem is not being tried under that law, since it did not exist when his daughter's cutting allegedly happened.

This is disgusting and horrific. I suppose that one could label me a xenophobic slimebag, but I don't care. I don't know how anybody can advocate the spread or continued practice of such a horrific prprocedure.

Wolf Blitzer shot down by Lynne Cheney

2006-10-30T08:33:00.000-05:00

This interview has gotten quite a bit of coverage. I finally had a few minutes to do a quick google search to find the video and watch it. Here are some of my favorite parts. Please note that the entire interview was supposedly to be about Cheney's new children's book. So much for that:

(On CNN's Broken Government series)

Wolf Blitzer: "You're talking about the Broken Government series..."

Lynne Cheney: (Cuts in) "Right there. Right there, Wolf. What kind of stance is that?...We're a country where the economy is healthy...a country that hasn't been attacked (in five years)...that's not broken government"

[...]

(On CNN's playing of a terrorist sniper video):

LC: "Do you want American to win"

WB: "Of course, we're Americans"

LC: "Then why are you running terrorist propoganda?"

WB: "That's not terrorist propoganda. We show both sides of the news."

LC: "That's not news, it's propoganda"

WB: "Which is news"

LC: "Oh, Wolf."

Here's video courtesy of YouTube. It's a little grainy, but the audio is good.

Now way back in the days before Fox News, my family were all CNN junkies. It was on all the time. Even through 9/11, we remained loyal to CNN. Aaron Brown was awe inspiring in his (early) coverage of the terrorist attacks. Lou Dobbs was captivating. Bill Hemmer (now with Fox) was great. And Crossfire, even with its loud mouth James Carville and Paul Begala, was balanced with Tucker Carlson (no longer with CNN) and Bob "the dog-faced man" Novak (now with Fox). The one host I could never stand? Wolf Blitzer.

Kudos to you, Lynne Cheney, for a job well done--until you got to the part about the lesbian sex in your book...what the hell was that? "They are lesbians, aren't they?"...."Well", says Mrs. Cheney, "not necessarily." Not sure what that means, but still.

Why vote Republican?

2006-10-29T19:31:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine sent me a link to this video that had been posted at Dean's World. Here's the video:

It's pretty darn funny, no? Four Howard Dean screams? Kanye West, Ted "Fat Man" Kennedy and John "Long Face" Kerry all on one video? That's a lot to handle...

Ghostbusters

2006-10-27T12:47:00.000-04:00

Last week I posted a clip from Boston Legal, with Alan Shore and Denny Crane dressed up like flamingos for Halloween. This week, here's Ray Parker Jr.'s incredibly tacky 80's video to the theme from Ghostbusters. I'm a little late today...usually this goofiness that nobody really cares about is posted by 9 or 10 at the latest, but I was a little preoccupied. So here is the display of total 80's bad taste, but first...you guessed it...Week in Review:

Sorry for the lack of posting, but I just haven't had the drive this week. Here's the Ghostbuster theme:

For those who will be celebrating Halloween early (ie over the weekend via parties and gatherings), be safe and have fun.

It makes it hard to disagree...

2006-10-26T06:49:00.000-04:00

Stuff like this makes it hard to convince people that arming teachers isn't such a good idea after all...

Letters have been sent home with Reagan High school students to advise parents of an attempted assault on a teacher there.

Meanwhile, the Texas Youth Commission is trying to locate the teen who may been responsible. Nathan Manuel Mendoza, 18, did not return to the Turman Halfway House in Austin on Tuesday afternoon.

Mendoza is accused of holding scissors to the teacher's throat and threatening to sexually assault her.

District police say the teacher had allowed him to sit in her classroom after school to work on an assignment.

Mendoza is a registered sex offender. The Texas Youth Commission said the teen should be considered very dangerous.

Anyone with information about his whereabouts should call police immediately.

Politicizing disease

2006-10-25T08:37:00.000-04:00

*Update: The folks over at Gateway Pundit explain that it's not just "America's Anchorman: that harmless, loveable little fuzzball el Rushmo" who's railing against the M.J. Fox ads.

When we politicize diseases, this is the kind of debate we get...

As I was skimming the blogs this morning--as I do nearly every morning--I came across several entries regarding comments by Rush Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox entering the political arena by doing ads for senatorial candidates in Maryland (Cardin) and Missouri (McCaskill ). The debate seems to be over what Limbaugh said--that Fox either acted well or had stopped taking his medication to make his condition look as bad as possible for the purpose of misleading people who suffer. The bigger debate--and the one which I think Limbaugh was trying to frame--is that the Democrats think that they can use 'victims' in political attack ads without any reprecutions. From Limbaugh:

Then you bring forth a person who's suffering the disease, and you illustrate the disease and the ravages and the suffering on TV to create sympathy and infallibility, because you're not supposed to be able to attack somebody or criticize somebody in any way or in any regard if they suffer from the disease. It's considered cold-hearted and cruel. What's happening here is that Michael Fox has entered the political arena with his attack, which includes false information about Senator Talent and Michael Steele in Maryland. That's fair ame, and I am not going to follow the script that says we're not allowed to comment on the things said by participants, "victims," what have you, that the Democrats put forth as infallible in the middle of a political campaign.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Limbaugh said. Sister Toldjah covered the debate here and here. She says that Limbaugh's comments about Fox possibly acting 'disgraceful.' I disagree. The comments may have been distasteful, though I think even that's a stretch, but he is not somehow insulated to say whatever he wants about this issue with out some sort of backlash from those who oppose his political views

Rush clearly outlines what the Dems are trying to do in this. They are painting conservatives as "for Parkinsons" for opposing stem cell research. We've seen it before. Conservatives are "for incest and babies born from rape victims" if we oppose abortion. We are for...well I'll let Rush explain:

That's what the Democrats are doing, politicizing diseases and illnesses, damaging what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort at addressing and curing illnesses, and the same time they claim if you don't embrace their political and cultural agenda, then you're for Parkinson's disease, and you are for spinal paralysis. It's no different than the way they do it in the environmental movement. They talk about dirty water and dirty air, and if you oppose the environmentalists, why, you must be for dirty water and dirty air! You don't want clean water and clean air, and this is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn't criticize them.

The bottom line is that celebrities, victims, disease patients etc. are not any different than anybody else once they enter the political arena--the are open to insult, debate and rebuttle just as anywone else. And so it should be. Rush's main point is simply that we cannot sit by and let somebody spew disinformation simply because they are victims etc. More:

The truth is, all stem cell research is legal today in Missouri. Jim Talent does not seek to criminalize it, as Michael J. Fox asserts in his television commercial. Stem cell research is legal today in Missouri, it is happening at universities across the state. The truth is Amendment 2 would put human cloning in the Constitution. Now, the Michael J. Fox ad says that Talent wants to criminalize research, and this is false. It is already legal and it's already happening. Senator Talent and other opponents of Amendment 2 are not touching stem cell research in any way. What they want to do is stop human cloning from becoming a new right in the Missouri Constitution, and so they have named the pro-cloning bill the stem cell research and cures initiative so that people will go to the polls on November the 7th and think they're voting for stem cell research, which is already legal.

Michael J. Fox is participating in this disinformation campaign. Folks, I don't care what anybody says, it is unseemly, it is exploitative, and it is downright mean to mislead people who suffer from incurable diseases at the moment or horrible diseases, that there is a cure around the corner if only, if only Republicans could be defeated. There has been a tradition in this country of bipartisan efforts to cure all of these diseases or to come up with vaccinations for them, but never mind that, we're in the process here now of damaging what has traditionally been this bipartisan effort in addressing and curing illnesses by politicizing them. We're now politicizing diseases and illnesses.

[...]

So the Michael J. Fox Foundation currently, with its namesake, doing commercials misleading Missourians and Marylanders on the effects of stem cell research and the idea that Republicans want to criminalize this research and stop and prevent a cure for Parkinson's disease has actually funded a follow-up study to this virus research that involves gene therapy. Do I need to say more? They're still not sure about this but it shows promising results, far more promising than anything that has come from embryonic stem cell research to date, ladies and gentlemen. Now, this has to be known by Mr. Fox since his foundation donated $1.9 million for a follow-up study on this and yet he still is producing these commercials.

But Rush doesn't blame Fox. He blames the candidates:

Now, who do you want to blame, you want to blame Fox or do you want to blame the candidates for running them? Robert George, the professor at Princeton, blames the candidates. They're the ones who are disgraced by exploiting and using the sufferers of this disease to politicize the illness and for political gain.

And so, love him or hate him, Rush is right yet again. Kudos to Rush for seeing--yet again--through the liberal trap.

Setting the record straight

2006-10-24T06:45:00.000-04:00

Sister Toldjah (who is just an amazing writer) sets the record straight on feminism. Here is the entire post. Read it all:

Just got done reading this piece by Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, in which she states her opinion that women really aren’t liberated today - they are merely sex objects being exploited. This is an argument I’ve seen written by other feminists before, but have neglected to address the topic until now. Shore writes:

Let’s be honest — we have taken women out of the factory, out of the kitchen, out of the maternity ward only to turn them, again, into sex objects. Sixty years ago, they were pin-ups or calendar girls; today, they’re advertising gismos and media bimbos. This isn’t progress — it’s promiscuity parading as freedom. And the biggest danger is that this shallow, cynical view of women ends up making them thoroughly interchangeable, dispensable and, ultimately, vulnerable.

This is not simply a feminist issue; this is a question of where we place our values. As long as we encourage and reward women solely for their entertainment value, we are turning them into dolls and puppets. We are denying their human-ness, and our own. We are creating a seraglio society.

Note the repeated use of the word “we” - it’s used to denote “society”, as in it’s society’s fault these women have chosen the path they have, when the reality is that the majority of women who sell their faces and bodies are doing it because they chose to, not because society forced them to do so. This is yet another all-too familiar example of feminists not wanting to accept responsibility for their actions, or more importantly, what they advocated. The women’s lib/sexual freedom movement of the 60s and 70s helped bring about the voluntary sexualization of women (and I say voluntary meaning that women willingly engage in it) that we see today in part because leading feminists of that time were big on the idea of women being able to do whatever they wanted and whenever ever they wanted with their bodies - including sex with multiple partners whenever and however, sex with other women, sex without responsibility. Anything and everything revolved around sexual freedom. Magazines and books about sex became immensely popular. Cable movie channels showing explict sex scenes would become popular starting in the 80s and continue to be so today.

And nowadays we have some of those same feminists who advocated or believed in that ‘whatever, whenever’ attitude wanting to complain about the fact that hundreds of thousands of women have chosen to use their bodies as sex objects in order to make money. Astounding. While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that the ’sex anytime, anywhere, I’ll be fast and loose with my body’ attitude does not equate to ‘progress for women’, I, unlike Shore, am aware of where exactly this attitude stemmed from and it did so, in large part, thanks to feminists of the 60s and 70s who encouraged women to uncover their bodies, shake their booties, and be sexually free to do whatever with whoever. In other words, women were encouraged to be as irresponsible with their bodies as possible, and told not to worry about the consequences of their actions.

What was ‘right’ then, apparently, is wrong today, if what Ms. Shore writes is any indication. Irresponsiblity back then was acceptable because women were just engaging in free love every chance they got as part of their newfound freedom. And for the past couple of decades, in addition to doing that, some of them have also learned to take advantage of their looks by selling them for money via photos, movies, etc. Ironically, back during the time of the women’s lib/sexual revolution movement, conservative female voices decrying what the feministas were preaching were laughed at and called ‘repressed, subservient, old-fashioned, behind the times’ etc simply because they said that the feminist movement was carrying things too far - those drowned out voices tried to get the femmes to understand that what they pushed for would have consequences down the road. They argued that with this newfound sexual freedom came responsibility. They were ignored. Guess what? Those conservative voices were right. The push for sexual freedom without responsibility over time led to an increase in the number of women with sexual diseases, higher illegitimacy rates, and a rise in abortions (once they became legal again).

According to Shore, women are still ’subjugated’ by men because those men enjoy the sight of the female form (horrors!) and in response, some women cash in. Shore makes the mistake of implying that most of the women who do this do so because they have no choice but to do it, which is a hell of a lot more convenient than admitting to the fact that telling women back in the 60s and 70s that they could be sexually irresponsible with their bodies actually translated into telling women they shouldn’t respect their bodies, which paved the way for the voluntary sexualization of women we see today. Think about it: If a woman respects her body, is she going to share it with just anyone? No self-respecting woman would. Sharing it over and over again - whether it be through sex, or revealing photos, or what have you - isn’t a sign of respect for your body, I don’t care how you spin it. Men don’t respect women who are fast and loose with their bodies, either. They might enjoy looking at them and, ahem, spending a little time with them, but they don’t enjoy coming home to them.

Feminists have always been fond of talking about how women should be empowered sexually, but in the process ignore where the real ’sexual empowerment’ begans. It looks as though Shore realizes now, as I do, that the real ’sexual power’ (if it should even be called that) was and always has been in the mystery of the female mind, body, and soul - and holding on to that mystery, not in literally and figuratively putting it out there on the table at drop of a hat. Too bad Shore doesn’t realize that what’s happening today has come about in part thanks to what the feminists of yesteryear - feminists she no doubt admired - pushed for with extreme vigor, because if she did understand and admit to the root causes of the problem, she might be able to come up with solutions better than this one:

We look in revulsion at Muslim women wrapped in scarves and veils. We pity them, and we despise the male chauvinism that imposes that on them. But here’s the catch: they are not caught up in our Western cult of exhibitionism and vanity. They are not openly competing with each other for men and men’s favors. They are
even, to a large degree, protected from assault and rape because they are virtually invisible. Home is their domain, husbands are their guardians.

Somewhere, between that repressive culture and our own permissive one, there must be a middle way.

Shore almost seems to be taking the same attitude of western convert to Islam Yvonne Ridley, whose delusional piece about Islam and feminsim I discussed at length Sunday. Not a good sign.
The solutions to the problem of sexualization should start in the home, with parents (rather than teachers) talking to their sons and daughters about respecting their bodies and making sure they know that it’s not a toy. The biggest battle comes not so much from getting parents to do that - because I’m sure most do try and instill a sense of values in their children, values that include loving and respecting one’s self - but culturally, through the images we see in magazines, on TV, on the Internet. Cultural reinforcement of good values, like abstinence until marriage, would go a long way towards reversing the social ills that radical feminism hath wrought. Ultimately, of course, the decision on what to do with their bodies is up to women themselves, but if we devoted as much time in this country to encouraging a strong sense of pride and respect in ourselves and our bodies as we did to glorifying sex, think about the positive social influence it could have on society as a whole, and look at the potential for real progress to be made. Sadly, that’s a more idealistic than realistic approach, as I don’t see America changing culturally as far as attitudes about sex are concerned anytime soon, if ever. Even today conservatives get laughed at for preaching the value of modesty. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl boob flash controversy almost three years ago is a perfect illustration of that. Every name in the book was thrown at conservatives after that: “prude” and “repressed” are two that come to mind.

I should also state for the record that I believe Shore way overstates her case and makes it sound like there aren’t many women out there who have been successful based on anything other than their looks. Yes, there are women out there who sell their looks for cash, but I believe there are far more women who have made it using their brains: Nurses, doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, CEOs, and so many more. But I won’t deny there is a problem with the voluntary sexualization of women - and I also won’t deny some of the root causes of this problem. You have to be able to recognize what those problems are in order to try and not repeat those mistakes. Along with that I won’t stop adovacting solutions that may seem hopeless now. Who knows? One day we may see a modesty revolution - ‘twould be interesting to see the feministas reaction to that one, eh? If there ever is such a revolution, yours truly will be standing on the front lines of it. In fact, I think I already am

How much is loyalty worth?

2006-10-23T20:32:00.000-04:00

Note: I wrote this post last week, but had not published it as I was considering adding a little more. But I've since gotten lazy. So here it is, take it for what it's worth.

How about 36.4 million dollars for a BioDiesel research facility at Marshal University? 10+ million for a new facility to house the nursing education program at Shepherd University? A few million for that, a few million for this?

This is the debate all West Virginians face when they go to the polls in November. Do we reelect Robert C. Byrd because he is the self-proclaimed "big-daddy," or do we send him packing because he does NOT represent West Virginia values? My vote stands solidly in the "send him packing" camp.

One of my professors and I had a little discussion about this on Monday. He's an interesting guy who, by his own account, is one of the more "conservative" profs on campus. Usually we get along and we're right there together on the issues. On this particular issue, though, we are a world apart. The following dialogue ensued (I will quote as accurately as I possibly can):

Prof: Jeff, you know me, I'm a pretty conservative guy, but have you heard these new radio ads by John...Rainie I think it is?

Jeff: It's Raese, but no, I haven't heard them. Why? What does he have to say?

P: Well he basically paints Byrd as a racist. He says he hasn't done any thing to develop West Virginia. Byrd's a liberal guy, but that doesn't always mean bad things...

J: Well Dr. ****, I don't really think that Raese is too far from the truth. I mean, Byrd was a member of the KKK for a long time. He did vote against the civil rights bill--he tried to filibuster it.

P: Yea, but....

J: And as far as development is concerned, what has he done to develop WV?

P: How can you question that? Walk through the campus. Byrd Center for Legislative Studies, the library addition, the new nursing facility. He's done a lot.

J: Is that how you measure development? Whether we get some 'goodies?' I don't measure whether my US Senator is doing his job in terms of how many goodies I get. What has he done for the state in terms of real development? Very little when we consider he's been in the Senate for ever.

P: Well I don't know. We can't really blame Byrd for that, can we?

J: I think so. At least partially. I mean it can also be give up to the fact that the Democrats have had a strangle hold on Charleston, but Byrd and Manchin--those two names have been here for the past 50+ years, and very little positive has been said about WV in that time.

P: We'll see how this pans out I guess.

Some people--even a smart guy like this--just don't get it. It all goes back to the old proverb: "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." Well Byrd throws us another fish ever 6 years or so. What about when he dies? How are we going to eat then?

Robert C. Byrd has grown more and more arrogant in his old age. In a speech at Marshall University, Byrd declared himself "Big Daddy." Big Daddy!! Here's the link.

Better still, though, was Raese's response radio response.

Raese doesn't stand a chance. I read a poll today that showed Byrd peaking at 62ish% to Raese's 30ish%. It's a damn shame, because John Raese is the kind of conservative we could use. Maybe he'll run against Rockefeller?

Homecoming '06

2006-10-22T23:16:00.000-04:00

Shepherd University's homecoming was this weekend. I wanted to post a few pictures Saturday night but Blogger was (apparently) down. So here are some pictures:

McMurran Hall stands as the pillar of tradition at Shepherd University. The oldest building on campus, McMurran hosts various administrative offices and was recently repainted. In front of McMurran, spectators are gathered and waiting for the start of the annual parade.

.The Shepherd Ram Band marches down German Street to the tune of Rob Thomas' Smooth from this year's show Viva Santana

Following the parade, Dining Services provided a delicious pig-roast. It was 'fun for all'--except the pig tee-hee.

The weather was perfect; sunny and 60. The stands were also packed; the fullest I've ever seen. And, Shepherd won the big game--42-0, an ass-whoopin' by all accounts.