Sheryl Crow Way to Wipe Out Male Poverty

Toilet Paper Use Offset Marketing


Borrowed from Are We Lumberjacks

The Liberals who want us out of their bedrooms (but then post videos of what goes on there all over the Internet) now want to get into our bathrooms.

Sheryl Crow, who uses her celebrity to showcase her intellect, wants to limit the toilet paper we use to one square per bathroom visit.

Since guys often don’t use any on many of their bathroom visits, isn’t this placing an unfair burden on women? I’ll be glad to sell “toilet paper use offsets.”

According to another Liberal intellectual, Rosie, her description of her needs based on her physiognomy would indicate there will be a vast demand for “toilet paper use offsets.”

It reminds me of the story my buddy Arthur told me of going through British Army training during World War II. At that time, just about everything, including toilet paper, was in short supply and rationed. The British had to stand in line to buy anything worth purchasing. It was said the British had their own national letter, the “queue.”

At any rate, Arthur’s training sergeant called his group to attention in formation, to inform them that they were violating the restriction on use of toilet paper of three squares: “One to wipe with, and two to polish off!”

I’ll be thinking of Sheryl Crow and her unpolished bottom whenever I hear that she and her entourage are on tour, with their four buses, three tractor trailers, and six cars, or as I hear her chartered Gulfstream jetting overhead.

I'll gladly deposit the checks she and Al Gore send me for the carbon offsets I sell them from my hundred redwood trees, and add to that the checks for the toilet paper use offsets.

Global warming is a swindle, but with Liberal intellectuals like Sheryl Crow leading the way, the profit potential is half vast, or in the case of Rosie, vast indeed.

UPDATE: "We're just so happy that people are talking about global warming, even if it's brought on by a joke," Crow told ABC News.

Aside from the fact that the news and commentary is "all global warming, all the time," and only skepticism about global warming doesn't get heard, we all got a laugh at, or with, Sheryl Crow. Now we are still wondering about the carbon credits or offsets - farce or swindle?

ABC, rather than noticing all the equipment used to transport Crow and show, chose to mention their "environmentally friendly biodiesel bus." Since I just read articles about how environmentally unfriendly biodiesel is, with the high particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions characteristic of diesels (toxic soot and smog forming emissions exceed gasoline engines), and the small decrease in CO2 they achieve, I can only conclude that when doing interviews, it is best to limit yourself to ignorant or supporting "news" networks.

Even the radical Concerned Scientists are wary of biodiesel, and other environmentalists are concerned about increased production of biodiesel causing loss of habitat, and increased pollution from fertilizer and pesticide use.

I might add that with the scarcity of water and food in many parts of the world, the increased competition for resources to grow non-food along with food crops, and meet increasing urban needs for safe and reliable water supplies, will create more problems by producing biodiesel than would be solved.

Don't tell ABC that it is dumb to have their entertainment reporters handle their science reporting, just as it is dumb for the global warming crowd to grab most of their headlines with celebrity airheads.

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

How I Became a Man

I remember vividly the day I became a man.

No, it wasn’t when Marilynn and I took the walk to the top of the hill with the huge rocks north of her home on Gypsy Flat.

It was nine years before that, when I was a Fifth grader at Point Arena Elementary School and the school got a large number of tickets to the Shrine Circus in the COW Palace, San Francisco. Unfortunately, there weren’t enough tickets for all the students to go, so they drew names.

I was drawn for a ticket, but my younger brother Ron wasn’t. I wanted to go to the circus so badly, that it made me very sad to think of Ron not going too.

So then and there, with tears hidden or choked back, I gave my ticket to Bruno.

Bruno had recently arrived with his mother from Italy. He was a year older, but was in Ron’s class while working his way up through the lower classes as he learned English. Bruno learned so well, that two years later when he graduated from elementary school, and four years after that when he graduated from Point Arena High, he was his class Valedictorian each time.

Giving my ticket to Bruno was one of the happiest sad events in my life. Years later, after I’ve seen my share of circuses and other enthralling entertainments, and forgotten a lot of what I’ve seen, I still remember my unselfish act when I was ten years old with pride.

It helped me realize that I was a thoughtful person, and even though Ron and I didn’t go to the circus, we shared the good feeling of helping Bruno adjust to his new life in America by showing him that he would have friends here.

The circus packs up and moves on, but it leaves its memories.

And sometimes it leaves a man where a boy had stood.

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

Blame the Collective

Who is Responsible for the Virginia Tech Murders?

All the votes are finally in and tallied about the Virginia Tech murders, and as expected, it’s our entire fault. Society murdered those poor students just as certainly as if each of us pointed the guns and pulled the triggers.

We allow easy access to guns.

We allow divisions in society by wealth, social class, talent, athletic ability, race, scholastic achievement, and all sorts of other factors too numerous to mention.

We don’t effectively identify and treat mental illness.

We allow a culture of violence on TV, radio, music, and video games.

As is always the case, when all are at fault, none can do anything about it.

Oh woe is us.

My position is, as expected, to remark that all of this is a huge pile of male bovine excrement.

We may allow easy access to guns, but we have strong laws governing their purchase and use. The problem is, our existing gun laws are not enforced. Law abiding citizens obey the laws, but they’re not the ones who commit the crimes.

In San Francisco two separate murders were committed by felons who previously could have and should have been charged with unlawful possession of firearms. Had they been successfully prosecuted and convicted, two people would be alive today.

If any of Cho’s parents, teachers, counselors, or medical examiners had taken firm and appropriate actions, Cho would have been blocked from purchasing the deadly weapons, and authorities would have been alerted by his attempt.

One of my friends noted that society was at fault because Cho was exposed to students who had nice cars, expensive clothes and toys, and who could spend extravagantly on entertainment. He felt society should do something about that.

Interestingly, that gives society two options. It can either give Cho and those in similar circumstances all the goodies the rich kids enjoy, or they can forbid the rich kids from having their goodies or take them away.

Or, if you are a Democrat, the preferred option is to redistribute wealth until all are at the same economic level.

Obviously, society then has to solve the other problems such as different talents and abilities. The only way to do that effectively is to handicap all factors. College admissions would be based solely on meeting diversity quotas. All students would receive the same grades. Taking a page from the egalitarian Chinese Communists in their pre-capitalist phase, all students will wear the equivalent of the Mao jacket. The clothing step is necessary because, even though wealth has been equalized, if left to their own devices some students would capitalize on their natural good looks, and the Mao jacket would go a long way towards leveling the appearance field.

Of course, making everyone the same won’t guarantee that all will be treated the same. Observer groups must be formed to watch social interactions and correct instances where individuals receive too much or too little attention.

Awards based on achievement must be eliminated. Even with the best handicapping, not every event will end in a draw, and winners will feel superior to losers.

The identification, then treatment of mental illness, presents many issues of privacy rights and personal freedom. Who will be responsible for identifying individuals in need of help? Who will pay for the attorneys fighting out each determination with the ACLU? Can someone who has mistakenly referred someone for mental illness be sued for unfairly stigmatizing the person? Conversely, can that person be sued for not correctly identifying someone who proved to be a danger to society?

More basic yet, how do you know when someone is the one who will snap? What are the signs?

We are exposed to violence as entertainment throughout our society. Our TV shows feature tens of thousands of murders and assaults each year. Movies are constantly improving and employing special effects and applying vivid imaginations to raise the threshold of acceptable gore. Rap music celebrates the most violent and demeaning relations between people. Finally, video games draw upon the violence of TV, movies, and music to distill a product that glorifies fast, intensive, graphic slaughter.

We can’t give ourselves all the credit for living in a violent world.

For the most part, most of us live peaceful lives, which make us all the more shocked when mindless violence enters our lives, even if only on the news.

We could be Hutus, who killed almost a million of their countrymen, their neighbors, because they were Tutsis, a different tribe, even though an outsider couldn’t have told them apart.

We could be Shiites, or Sunnis, both reading the same Koran, both worshipping Allah, and killing each other over events that took place over a thousand years ago.

Or we could be Germans, Japanese, Soviets, Chinese, Cambodians, Iraq under Saddam, Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, each engaging in the slaughter of millions, often their own citizens.

So it’s obvious we don’t have a monopoly on violence, but where have we gone wrong?

Maybe it’s better to ask, when do we get it right?

We get it right when parents know their children, and stay in constant touch with them. Who else will know if they have a serious problem? Who else can give them the love, respect, discipline, attention, whatever it takes to make them socially aware and responsible citizens?

It will only be by accident if someone other than a parent or close relative takes an interest and learns enough about a child to be a positive influence in their life.

Just staying in contact with their children is going to be too much for a lot of parents to handle, and they will have a lot of excuses why they can’t. They will be too tired, and too busy. They’ll want to sit there and watch the violence on TV themselves. They’ll be happy when their kids spend time playing video games, instead of demanding their parents’ attention.

Their own bad attitudes and poor personal habits will be what their children learn. Their children won’t learn morality from immoral examples. Or civil discourse from rude and angry elders.

In the final analysis, we take care of our obligation to society when we support and demonstrate taking responsibility for our own actions.

We can’t make anyone change, but we can each be a good example.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Imus Taken Out by Friendly Fire

I was shocked to see a Lefty taken down, until I realized that all the Lefties I heard comment on Imus’ remarks thought he was a Conservative. The cowboy gear and his love of country and western music threw them off.

Plus his audience is primarily Liberal white males, so disparaging remarks about young Black women didn’t ring any alarm bells.

Yep, Imus f’d up, was found guilty of “talking while looking like a Conservative.”

It didn’t take the Los Angeles Times long to sound the alarm, but by then the damage to Democrats had been done.

THE IMUS SCANDAL: POLITICAL IMPACT
Democratic politicians lose a soapbox with Imus
His show gave many of them a way to reach a national audience of white males -- a crucial voting bloc. By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff WriterApril 13, 2007

“Damn it, we done done a friendly fire f-up!" (Many journalists were educated in our public school system and talk and write like this).

"We only do this to Conservatives,” are the words echoing in the halls of the Liberal national press – please excuse the redundancies: “Liberal press,” “national press”- just simply “press” would suffice. The press doesn’t do this to Liberals, only Conservatives, and right now the press is reviewing their labeling system to make sure they don’t take out another one of their guys.

They don’t have any on radio to spare.

Anyone remember the Left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, Al What's-His-Face?

Franken got the most publicity in his career as the press agonized over why no one was listening to him and Air America, stillborn on March 31, 2004, still awaiting interment.

Franken has now left Air America, and still no one listens to it.

I think the way the press handles these kinds of issues was clearly demonstrated by their treatment of Senators Trent Lott (Rep-Miss) and Robert Byrd (Dem-WV).

When Lott made a remark at the 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond that he supported Strom’s bid for the presidency over half a century before, Liberal outrage at Lott’s implied, not explicit, racist comment cost Lott his position as Senate Majority Leader. The facts that Lott was making the remarks jokingly to a Republican (Thurmond was a Democrat when he ran against Truman for his party’s nomination in 1948), and in a private setting (birthday party) not intended for a national audience, did not mitigate the Liberal outrage.

Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman, personal filibuster participant against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, leading light of the Democrats for over half a century, and the top Senate Democrat, mentioned “white niggers” twice on March 4, 2001 while being interviewed by Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday. Senator Byrd wasn’t forced to resign any of his Senate positions.

In fact, he received less criticism for his “nigger” remarks than non-politician commentator Ann Coulter did for saying “faggot” when discussing John Edwards.

So here is a white male, former KKK officer, opponent of the Civil Rights Act, who used demeaning racial words on national television, and he is given a free pass because he is a Democrat.

Then you have black males, rap stars, who can say anything demeaning or nasty they want about women of any race, and they continue to reap riches from their misogyny. One of them, Ludacris, not only demeans and insults women in almost every line of his “songs," like “Ho,” he also enjoys a special relationship with Obama, who piously announced he would never go back on Imus’ show.

There are no words adequate to describe the hypocrisy of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, so I’ll just mention a few: “Twana Brawley,” and “Heimietown.” ‘Nuff said?

I want Imus’ show back for one reason: to make a righteously indignant statement against hypocrisy.

Personally, I can’t stand shows like his (or Oprah’s, Howard Stern’s, or …and the list goes on and on) and I never listen to radio or watch TV any more (NFL football games don’t count, do they?). Life’s too short, and I’m a better judge of what are interesting and entertaining ways to occupy my time than the network dealers serving up their opiates to the masses.

Still I wish Imus well, because as a retired military officer I've heard that the greatest hurt comes from being taken out by “friendly fire.”

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

Good News and Bad News about Global Warming

This is a public service announcement. It contains good news and bad news.

The bad news first.

There is no man-caused global warming.

The good news.

There is natural global warming.

For those of you who believed Al Gore when he said mankind could give you warmer weather, healthier and more abundant crops, gentler weather (when temperature variation is reduced, so is storm intensity), and less frost and freezing damage to fruits, I’m sorry to bear the sad tidings that mankind just can’t do it. The more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the marginal effect of CO2 on warming steadily decreases.

And CO2 increases can’t overcome other, stronger forces, like solar and orbital variations.

That’s why it was warmer 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period than today, without any regard to increased CO2 from industrialization – because there wasn’t any.

It was even warmer during the Holocene Climate Optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. In fact, without benefit of mankind's production of CO2, temperatures in northern latitudes increased by much more than the most alarmist predictions of Al Gore's global warming apostles and acolytes.

Bad news for polar bear phobics. Polar bears survived both of these extended warm periods.

As a result of solar and orbital variations, the Earth warmed more during the first half of the 1900’s, and actually cooled from 1940 to 1980, even though CO2 increased steadily and dramatically.

For those who want the benefits of warmer weather, we have good short-term news. The Earth is warming naturally, and has been sporadically since the high point of the last glacial period was reached 18,000 years ago.

All the good things warmer weather can bring will be lavished on us – for the next 2,000 years.

Then global cooling will set in.

The current interglacial period will be replaced by the next glacial period.

Just as it has hundreds of times before.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

The Illiterates

You know when you can't read, but how do you know you're a history illiterate?

I wrote about The Irrelevants, now it’s time to address The Illiterates.

Actually, they are the Selective Illiterates. They can read. They just won’t read anything that doesn’t agree with or reinforce their Leftist ideologies.

For example, a couple of years ago I had a brief argument with a local pacifist and serial peace protester at a dinner fundraiser at the Gualala Arts Center.

She began by deploring the atomic bombing of Japan, and then stated that the United States forced Japan to attack us because we were unfairly embargoing iron and oil from being shipped to Japan. In her view, and from many Leftist articles she had read, the United States was practicing economic imperialism against Japan.

As the discussion continued, it became apparent that she had no knowledge of events prior to the United States and Australian iron embargo in 1940. The “Rape of Nanking” rang no bells in her memory of historical events. However, she was sure that if we had just listened to the Japanese and paid attention to their concerns about their economic security, all would have been peaceful and harmonious.

Kumbaya.

A little historical background for the one or two Leftists reading this, necessary in light of their inveterate historical illiteracy. The Empire of Japan invaded China on July 7, 1937. Next to the Soviet Union, China had more civilian deaths in World War II than any other nation – twelve million civilian deaths in the Soviet Union, seven million in China. In addition, two million Chinese military were killed. In contrast, not counting Holocaust victims, the Germans only had two million civilians killed, and the Japanese only six hundred thousand.

Almost all of the Japanese civilian deaths occurred in the last months of the war, and about half were Okinawans who became part of Japan, under duress, only sixty years before the Battle of Okinawa. When defeat was inevitable, the Okinawan’s Japanese “brothers” urged and assisted them in committing suicide in vast numbers.

More “Japanese” civilians were killed in the invasion of Okinawa than by both atomic bombs combined. One of the largest causes of Japanese civilian deaths was the fire bombing of their cities during the first stages of preparations for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Had the atomic bombs not been dropped, and the invasion of Japan by conventional forces had commenced, it is estimated that ten million Japanese would have died from starvation alone.

Getting back to China, after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the invasion of China in1937, and the Nanking Massacre in early 1938, the United States did negotiate fruitlessly with Imperial Japan for two years before following Australia in 1940 with an embargo on iron.

The bottom line: the United States did what my pacifist friend said they should, and as usual, all our peace efforts produced were a lot more dead victims of aggression.

“When will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?”

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Playing Hard to Get

A lesson lost on the young ladies of today is the power of “playing hard to get.”

Not impossible to get, but hard to get.

Being easy never brought anyone long-term advantages.

As we used to say, back when I was a boy and half the country were farmers, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk free?”

The lesson of playing hard to get may be lost on our young, lissome lovelies, but not on our legislators. They know the goodies, the earmarks, the set asides, go to the legislators whose votes must be seduced, not to the ones who vote their principles.

For example, suppose a bill comes up for vote that is favored by a legislator, who now and then will be referred to as Legislator X. So he/she/it votes for it. The party leadership says “We knew we could count on good old what’s-his/her/its-name.”

Suppose the same bill, the same legislator, but this time he/she/it says for some idealistic reason the bill is bad.

“It goes too far.”

“It doesn’t go far enough.”

“It will cost too much.”

“Not enough resources have been allocated to make it effective.”

In this way, the legislator can, in good conscience, oppose any bill, and not look like a hypocrite.

Now what happens? First, the party’s senior membership, who never gave good old what’s-his-name a second thought, now confer and ask, “What can we offer good old what’s-his-name to get his/her/its support on this?”

Meanwhile, what’s-his-face now finds he/she/it is the center of attention, and all are eager to ask what happened to support for the bill? Particularly, why no support for this bill, when passing it was the main reason our subject legislator said drove him to run for office?

What happened?

Now is the time for Legislator X to shine. The world is watching. The world is listening.

Will X blow it?

Actually, regardless of X’s eloquence, or more likely lack thereof, and regardless of any semblance of logic on the part of X, X is playing a winning hand.

Like the girl who said “no,” but with a twinkle in her eye, Legislator X has now become “one to be wooed.”

The girl who said “no” may eventually have gotten everything she would have if she said “yes,” plus she also got wined, dined, danced, and romanced.

So it is with our Legislator X, who in addition to seeing his pet bill passed, now has lots of porcine products to take back to his constituents. Reelection is assured by no longer being “taken for granted.”

Just like the girl showing her new ring to admiring girlfriends, there is a lot to be gained by playing hard to get.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

The Irrelevants

A dedicated peace activist can be both.

A couple of weeks ago I parked at the Gualala Post Office to pick up our mail and buy a few things at the Surf Super Market across the street. On my way to and from the super market, I passed through a small crowd of about fifty peace protesters, many of whom are my friends and neighbors. Several recognized both me and my politics, and thoughtfully invited me to join them.

I gave them a cheery, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and continued on my merry way, thinking of all the peace protests and vigils I have seen and read of over the years, and of how they never accomplished anything.

The idea then formed that the peace protesters and activists should be named, “The Irrelevants.” No matter what they do, nothing changes. Further, their protests have spawned protests, and now any protest worthy of the name will include “Free Mumia,” “Liberate Palestine,” “Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-Bisexual-Interspecies Rights,” “Fight Global Warming,” “Save the (Whales) (Sea Otters) (Salmon) (Desert Kangaroo Rat) (pick one),” “Stamp Out Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO),” “Medical marijuana for all (because everyone is sick!),” and of course, how could you have a protest without “Socialists Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything (SWINE).”

In other words, the protests have taken on a life on their own, and the only unifying factor is a mindless hatred of President Bush.

I wrote a letter to my local weekly newspaper, the Independent Coast Observer, and observed that it was a beautiful day for all the Irrelevants to gather and enjoy the sun and fresh air while they accomplished nothing.

One of my neighbors replied in a letter to the Editor that since I was outnumbered fifty to one, might I not be the irrelevant one?

That reply inspired the following response from me:

Relevance is not determined by numbers but by accomplishments. If one hundred thousand peace activists chanted to their crystals at sunrise on Mount Tamalpais, the world would not be moved one millimeter closer to peace.

The twenty-three million inhabitants of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are few in number, and are leading a miserable existence that starves both their bodies and their souls. Surely the world could send a vast contingent of peace activists to North Korea and overcome their belligerence with the power of love. After all, they are Democrats and it is a People’s Republic.

During the Cold War, one security policemen standing guard over a bomber on nuclear alert, on a cold, rainy night on an Air Force flightline somewhere in the middle of Kansas, or Nebraska, or some other place where they don’t think peace comes from chanting and burning incense, did more for world peace than all the peace activists of the world for all time.

Actually, having a lot of peace activists in Muslim countries would be a great idea, except then the world would have a lot of dead and imprisoned Muslim peace activists, and the world would continue as before. Lots of North Korean, Cuban, Sudanese, Congolese, and Chinese peace activists would be a good thing too.

Among the world’s great ironies is that the only place peace activists thrive are in peaceful places, and those places are peaceful because of victories in wars and the accumulation and development of military might.

It is sad but true that the despotic rulers of the world brutally suppress their peace protesters while encouraging ours.

My offer still stands, and in over two weeks now no one has suggested a potential war that peace protesters prevented. Or one they stopped. Or even slowed down.

The above letter will probably appear in Friday the 13th issue of the ICO, which will be in our mailboxes on the 12th.

So once again, the gauntlet is flung down.

When I’m dealing with Leftists, and the odds are fifty to one against me, I feel I have them outnumbered and surrounded.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Pass It On

Assad to Pelosi:"I'm glad Jimmy Carter sent you, but next time don't forget the head scarf. On reflection, a burkha would look even better and more appropriate on you."

At some time in our life we have all played the game, “Pass It On.” Sometimes it wasn’t a game, but a real life event called “gossip.” Norman Rockwell did a marvelous Saturday Evening Post cover that illustrated a message being passed, and finally getting back to its originator in a totally unrecognizable and thoroughly embarrassing form.


"Gossip"

In school someone would write down a simple sentence and whisper it to another student, and the message would pass student to student around the classroom until the last one in the chain recorded the message received, and then compared it to the original. Invariably it was hilariously transformed into something nonsensical.

“Pass It On” has also been used in management classes and seminars to illustrate the importance of clear communications – and why you shouldn’t trust the “grapevine” to do the job effectively.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just provided another example of how “pass it on” communications are fraught with peril, and she was able to muck it up completely even though she was the only communicating link in the chain.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Mr. Olmert then went on to repeat exactly the same conditions for peace with Syria that Israeli governments have stipulated over and over for many years: Syria’s willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

However, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria.

But Olmert’s statement said he had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

The Washington Post, almost as stalwart a mouthpiece for the Democrats as the San Francisco Chronicle (“All Pelosi, all the time”) and the Los Angeles Times, included the following in an April 5, 2007 editorial, “Pratfall in Damascus - Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy.”

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace, Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

Again, for those with short memories, a gentle reminder that the above statements are from a Washington Post editorial. The Washington Post is, and has always been, a key component of the vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

Ms. Pelosi, in her erroneous overtures to Syria, is taking the heat off Mr. Assad for the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri.

Ms Pelosi has also unfairly put heat on Mr. Olmert and Israel to make concessions to Mr. Assad and Syria to revive a peace process that Syria has done everything possible to subvert.

Ms Pelosi received the blessing of Jimmy Carter for her efforts, thereby completing the Foreign Policy Foul Up trifecta.

If she could have in some way revived the ghost of Arafat in her “negotiations,” she would have achieved classic Democrat Four Blunder Diplomacy, something that only Jimmy Carter himself accomplished.

Many times.

As it is, she has reinforced the copyrights the Democrats have on “foolish” and “amateurish” to describe their foreign policy initiatives.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.