Where Is The Muslim Outrage?

Where Is The Muslim Outrage?

Note to Muslims - It's not a good idea to phone a talk show host about your outrage over Mohammed cartoons!

A Nation Of Tinkers

We Are Compulsive Tinkers

As soon as I started to plow through the headlines and commentary on the Mid-East crisis, I knew that Israel and President Bush are doing the right thing. In Newsweek, President Bush’s foreign policy is given a “down” arrow. The San Francisco Chronicle criticizes Israel for killing Lebanese civilians. European governments, and commentators at all levels of newspapers, television, and magazines, collectively wring their hands and implore, beseech, plead, demand, a cease fire.

What, in the name of Sam Hill, would a cease fire accomplish? Would it “pave the way for diplomacy?” So far, the way paved by diplomacy was used by Hezbollah and Hamas to bring in and sequester a very large supply of rockets, the sole purpose of which was to rain terror on Israel by killing Israeli civilians.

Iran and Syria have hidden behind the actions of their Hezbollah and Hamas surrogates, bankrolling and supplying war materials to them while denying involvement.

Again I ask, what does a cease fire accomplish? The government of Lebanon cannot even control southern Lebanon. The only way Hezbollah will cease their murderous ways is if they are annihilated by Israeli attacks. Why should Hezbollah be given freedom to attack Israel from Lebanon, without Israel treating this as an act of war? Should Israel be expected to not blow up Hezbollah fighters and war materials because Hezbollah chooses to hide them among Lebanese civilians? Hezbollah certainly isn't constrained by world opinion from attacking Israeli civilians – in fact, Israeli civilians seem to be their primary target.

Why does Hezbollah have the rockets? Not for defensive purposes, obviously. Why did Hamas keep firing rockets into Israel? Not for defensive purposes, obviously.

What then is the obvious reason Hezbollah and Hamas have the rockets, and have been attacking Israel? The obvious reason is they want to perpetuate a state of war with Israel until their final triumph over Israel. The old saying is “it doesn’t matter how many times Israel wins, Israel’s opponents only have to win once.”

Still the fools, and the savages who hate Israel, plead for President Bush to make Israel cease firing. Israel must not be allowed to decimate Hezbollah and Hamas, because that would be “disproportionate” use of force. After all, Hezbollah and Hamas can’t annihilate Israel, yet, so why shouldn’t Israel be made to wait until annihilation is a more credible threat? At least wait until Hezbollah and Hamas are better armed, and can inflict real damage. Also Israel should wait until Iran has nuclear warfare capabilities, rather than striking preemptively. Where is Israel’s sense of fairness? Just because all of their antagonists have pledged the destruction of Israel shouldn’t be anything to worry about.

Americans are natural-born tinkers. We don’t want to take something that isn’t working worth a damn, tear it out by its roots, and replace it with something that makes sense. Our Internal Revenue Code runs into hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and interpretations, so to solve the problem we create – more regulations and interpretations – and then we will label the resulting abomination the IRS Simplification and Reform Act of Year Whatever. In truth, only the very simple think anything was simplified or reformed. We just tinker, we never actually change anything.

If Israel is continually attacked by agencies sworn to its destruction, we plead for diplomacy to be given a chance. Liberals point to the great diplomatic efforts of Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat, which brought peace to the Middle East for a weekend or two. A peace that was used then as cover to recruit, train, and supply the forces that are attacking Israel now. Hamas says they won’t honor any of the agreements previously made with Israel. So much for Bill Clinton’s legacy as Tinker-in-Chief.

The demands are at a crescendo for President Bush to show he can tinker. And he had better start his tinkering right now, before it’s too late for Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel is “a-fixin’-to” lay some serious “tinkering” on them.

Tax Cuts Really Aren't Brain Surgery

(Numerous other Democratic expletives deleted - not suitable for a family-friendly blog)
(This post inspired by Dr. Sanity)

When a Liberal has holes bored in his head, the truth finally gets a chance to penetrate. In an article posted to Time.com on July 16, 2006, Yes, It Really Is Brain Surgery Be nice to the man with the holes in his head, by Michael Kinsley (a great talent, to whom I wish all the best recovery from surgery for Parkinson’s Disease), Michael wrote that he was working on the line he would deliver when he came out of surgery.

Time Magazine update: Kinsley's surgery took place on July 12 and went fine. His first words were, "Well, of course, when you cut taxes, government revenues go up. Why couldn't I see that before?"

What wonderful timing for Michael Kinsley, to see the light just as President Bush was announcing:

"This economy is growing, federal taxes are rising, and we're cutting the federal deficit faster than we expected," Bush noted, citing a mid-year report released earlier in the day by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). "As a matter of fact, we're a year ahead" of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, he stated.After noting that his administration's original deficit projection for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2006, was $423 billion, the president stated: "Today's report from OMB tells us that this year's deficit will actually come in at about $296 billion," a decline of $127 billion.

At one time even the Democrats knew the power of cutting taxes to create economic growth and increase tax revenues. Although Teddy Kennedy cried “foul” when President Bush brought this fact up in his 2004 election campaign, according to President Kennedy (Heritage Foundation Tax Research) :

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

President Kennedy proposed a series of tax rate reductions in 1963 that resulted in legislation the following year dropping the top rate from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965.

The Kennedy tax cuts helped trigger the longest economic expansion in America's history. Between 1961 and 1968, the inflation-adjusted economy expanded by more than 42 percent. On a yearly basis, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent.

Tax revenues grew strongly, rising by 62 percent between 1961 and 1968. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

After the Jimmy Carter-inspired malaise, the Reagan era began.

Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs.

The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were dramatic. When Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was being choked by high inflation and was in the middle of a double-dip recession (1980 and 1982). The tax cuts helped pull the economy out of the doldrums and ushered in the longest period of peacetime economic growth in America's history. During the seven-year Reagan boom, economic growth averaged almost 4 percent.

As a direct result of the Reagan tax cuts, total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

After Michael Kinsley came to after surgery and stated his revelation, his next words to the doctors and nurses gathered round probably were: “I hope you’re all Democrats, and not a word of this gets out.”

(Seamlessly – maybe shamelessly – shifting from the medical theater to a courtroom scene)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, in summation, this is an open and shut case. Tax cuts encourage economic activity and grow the economy, and a growing economy increases total tax revenues.

Case closed.

Having More Fun Than The Law Allows

(This is a continuation of Prometheus 6 - Into The Lions Den, where a lively discussion ensued centered on my post, My Ancestors Owned Slaves. It was me against the website, and after a short while I felt I had them surrounded.)

Reluctantly, I say my goodbyes to Prometheus 6. They initiated the discussion, I chimed in with comments, and it didn't take long for the whole process to deteriorate into them posturing and posing. Once the "trash talking" takes over, nowhere is where you're getting fast. It was interesting and exciting for me, but I sensed I wasn't playing my part. I'm a foreigner in their culture and don't understand the significance of the profanity and put-downs. I think I was supposed to respond in kind, but that would come across as phoney. Since I haven't watched TV (except football) for over ten years, my "jive" talk would sound like ten year sit-com "jive"talk. And I bet no one but me calls it "jive" talk anymore, anyway.

I sent the following "goodbye" letter, but it appears I didn't need to, because Prometheus 6 already pulled the plug on me. I sent it a couple of hours ago, it went into their "comment moderation" cycle, and it hasn't appeared yet.

Worn Out My Welcome

It has been fun. I still have a lot of points on the table none of you have touched, for example, the General Motors analogy. Still, I see that you have declared victory, without breaking a sweat. So just sit back now and wait for the reparations checks to roll in. (See Cargo Cult, Reparations, and Casinos for more of my thoughts on Reparations)

Your boasts and brags are like tales “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” But for a few brief moments my article and comments stirred you, and you unleashed your torrents of “bigot, red neck, racist dog, Major Asshole,” and plantation imagery of mint julep sipping while watching the slaves sweating for ‘Ol Massa.

When you said in your comments I was “Beat Down,” I looked up "Beat Down," but didn’t find me there. Then I looked at what I have written, and I found someone who was happy to be brought to your Garden Party, even though you did so selectively by cherry picking my article. I didn’t write the article to be a race baiter, but I did hope to stir controversy. Mission accomplished. Why? Because I am a descendent of slave owners, and many Blacks are too. Blacks want reparations paid for slavery, but only because they are living comfortably in a nation that can afford to waste its money - on them. The Blacks living in Africa, most of them descendents of both slaves and slavers, know that descendents of the ones who were taken to the United States are the lucky ones.

Plus I don't suffer from the Liberal guilt that would make me keep my mouth shut.

In the meantime, my thoughts take me back to the over 21 years I served in the greatest meritocracy the world has ever seen, the U S Air Force in particular, and the U S military overall. The folks I served with proudly didn’t need reparations, or affirmative action, to get ahead and do a great job. Many, like me, were born and raised poor, but we took our opportunities and made the best of them. It feels great when the one responsible for your accomplishments is you, and you’re the only one to blame for your failures.

The person who says he can do it, and the one who says he can’t, are both right.

Shalom

UPDATE: This comment from Prometheus 6 just popped up on their web site:

Major Mike

I haven't declared victory. I just see no reason to subject the folks here to 20 year old race-baiting lines.

You've established nothing. You've only expressed your unsupported opinions.

Meanwhile, I think I'll stop past your place and see if you deleted my comments.

How interesting. He decided not to subject his folks to my comments, after earlier going to Real Clear Politics, selectively copying from my article, and commenting on it. I suppose I can understand why he doesn't want to subject "the folks" to my ideas - they definitely don't fit in on his plantation. Then he gratuitously declares them 20 years old - I didn't realize my ideas were time/date stamped - and that they are "race-baiting" because I don't support reparations and affirmative action.

These are not unsupported opinions. My article was opposed to paying reparations to Blacks for slavery because none of us were slave owners or slaves. Prometheus 6 never proved any of us were, and further never made a logical case - remember the General Motors analogy? - for a collective responsibility to pay Blacks reparations for slavery.

Other support for my "unsupported" opinions comes from Bill Cosby, Dr. Walter Williams, and Dr. Thomas Sowell. These learned gentlemen believe Blacks are responsible for their problems, and for their solutions. Making Black failures a collective responsibility that somehow can be solved by giving money for nothing is something that no fair and rational being could support.

Then his argument moved away from reparations for slavery, and morphed into living under Jim Crow. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended the vestiges of Jim Crow, over half of Blacks today were born after 1964, and many Blacks prior to 1964 did not live in the South, it is logical to say that only a small minority of Blacks alive today lived under Jim Crow.

Therefore, it is illogical to pay reparations to all Blacks for living under Jim Crow when most didn't, and since the vast majority of Americans alive today did not uphold Jim Crow or have anything to do with it, to have them pay for it.

But then it was time to move on to the book Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism (Hardcover) by James W. Loewen , $29.95 marked down to $18.87, currently number 72,062 in Amazon rankings. Dr. Loewen's anecdotal "proof" is very interesting, but not sufficient cause to pay all Blacks reparations because a small minority can't live in towns such as Grosse Pointe, Michigan, Darien, Connecticutt, and in all of Idaho (Huh? I didn't know they wanted to).

At this point I am wondering what the NAACP is doing to earn all the dues they collect, if they can't get their army of lawyers on these cases and end illegal housing discrimination.

While Dr. Loewen is at it, he should check on why so few Blacks live on The Sea Ranch, California. My buddy Don is one. I can't think of any others. I wouldn't want to live there myself - too many rules - but the median home price there is also $835,000, which makes it even easier to not live there.

His final statement, that he is going to check on me to see if I deleted his earlier comments, is illustrative of his warped viewpoint. I don't delete comments. I don't even "moderate" comments, as he does. I think he suspects me of being like him.

He visited and left a comment. Darn. I was hoping he wouldn't get there until after I added this update. I'll email him and let him know what he missed.

Prometheus 6 - Into The Lions' Den

Prometheus In Chains


My post on Real Clear Politics Reader Articles, "My Ancestors Owned Slaves" was my most popular post so far by far. During the past three days I had over 400 visitors, and about 300 of them viewed "My Ancestors Owned Slaves," plus enough readers voted for it (and for "Making The Army Of Reconquista") to move both posts into the featured Reader Submissions category.

One added plus, a contributor to Prometheus 6, a Black-themed website, posted an excerpt and commented on my article. Click on "Prometheus 6" above to go to the post and comments concerning my article. Don't expect to find that anyone at Prometheus 6 agreed with anything I wrote. The following is my reply to the leading and following comments of the Prometheus 6-ers:


Feeding Time!

I want to get a few things straight in our discussion of my article, “My Ancestors Owned Slaves.” The first is I didn’t crash your “Prometheus 6” garden party; you invited me when you selected portions of my article to post on your website.

The second, I don’t have to base my arguments against reparations on going back to and discussing all the historical wrongs of slavery and the post slavery period; you have to convince me that you’re due reparations because you were victimized, not because your life has been tough. What you want may not be what you get, and so far I have not seen one coherent argument for reparations.

Third, I understand you have an incredible database to document the reasons for your failures; wallowing in victimhood seems to have become a national pastime, not just a Black obsession. I’m sure many of you have Ph. D.’s in Victimology.

Fourth, my disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance, lack of education, or intellectual capacity. If you take the time to go to my website and browse, you will find a lot of things you disagree with, but you will also find I have led a life of educational accomplishment, travel, and variety of experience. Born and raised poor, now living the American dream.

Finally, all the threats that I should “tread lightly, or get em-bare-assed,” or being called “Major Asshole Mike,” don’t constitute proof that you are right. I know I’m in hostile territory. I know you have your own Gospel of “the way it is,” and that nothing I do or say will shake your beliefs. In fact, it won’t even make you think, but maybe it will make you wonder if someone can have a reasonable and logical basis for disagreeing with you.

Blacks are not the only ones who have it rough. Not in the least. Irish tell of “No dogs or Irish” signs. Japanese lost property and were placed in internment camps during World War II. The Asian refugees you called “self selected” left Cambodia and Vietnam in fear of their lives. Hispanics are fleeing Cuban government oppression, and poverty and corruption in Mexico, Guatemala, and many other American nations. In Haiti, Blacks experience anything and everything that could be bad, and worse. Since all of these problems are blamed on Uncle Sam, maybe they should be the ones claiming reparations.

I hope I didn’t give them any ideas.

Just this past Friday a Rotary Club officer told of how she and her family suffered religious and ethnic persecution at the hands of both the Soviets and the Nazis, and spent over eight years in fear, desperation, and starvation before they were able to leave war-torn Europe for a new life in the United States. Arriving with no money, no education, not being able to speak, read, or converse in English, her father, brothers, and a sister dead, no family or friends to call on, she is now a successful business woman who has dedicated herself to improving the lives of unfortunate Africans – clean water, better nutrition, education – her gifts to the world, because of the opportunities she found in the United States.

Only Blacks who have experienced the inhumanity of Darfur, or Rwanda, can know how Jews in Europe were enslaved, starved, beaten and tortured, then killed with less humanity than we show a stray dog found in the street. Many of those who escaped annihilation arrived with ruined bodies and health, penniless, not understanding the language and culture, after living through a decade of Hell on Earth. I doubt any descendent of American slaves alive today has experienced the like.

As a final point, your analogy of citizenship and ownership of General Motors shares stinks. On this one, I’ll have to pull rank. Not the rank of a retired Air Force Major, but that of a CPA, MBA. When you buy the shares of a publicly traded company, like General Motors, your liability is limited to the amount of your investment. If the company goes bankrupt, not impossible given the current state of General Motors, and the company goes into liquidation (not likely), the investors are not liable for liabilities remaining after assets are sold and proceeds of the sale applied to liabilities.

Your analogy stinks on many other grounds. When you make an investment in a publicly traded company, you are investing in earnings potential, given past performance and projections of future performance. All this is done in light of the risk you perceive, and your degree of risk aversion. If circumstances change and now don’t suit your investment objectives, you sell General Motors and do something else with your money. Buying General Motors is a choice, being born in the United States isn’t usually, unless you’re a pregnant foreigner who gets across the border just in time to have your baby in the United States.

So far the analogy that underpins your whole argument doesn’t hold water. Come back at me when you get the intellectual leaks patched.

(Dear Reader - please click the following link to see than I am Having More Fun Than The Law Allows)

RESPECT

Preface - This is a letter I sent to our local weekly newspaper, The Independent Coast Observer (ICO), in response to a letter which appeared two weeks ago (now 15 yards ago). The writer meant well, but obviously is clueless about the military and how her comments demean its members.

A couple of weeks ago a writer to the ICO was saddened by the lower education level of soldiers who signed up on AnySoldier.com. She found them to be “not the cream of the crop, not obvious college material, not the ‘advantaged.’” “They often are the under dogs from the under belly of our country.”

Intrigued, I decided to run this test myself and see if I could make snap judgments of education and character based on Internet information, so I went to DailyKos and Democratic Underground, and skimmed the comments. The writer may be on to something. A lot of the comments, particularly about the military and President Bush, were ungrammatical, poorly punctuated, with numerous misspellings. As a bonus, they had a feature lacking on AnySoldier.com, they were laced with profanity, especially the ones concerning President Bush. Apparently they think many Republicans have serious Oedipus complexes.

Actually, I think it was very nice the Democrats organized a Military Appreciation Day to send goodies to the troops. My family did that frequently for me during the early part of my 21 years in the Air Force, and Alice and I have sent many packages to my Army son when he was in Iraq, and earlier Haiti. We also sent a lot of magazines and other goodies for him to pass around in his unit.

However, increasingly the American public is out of touch with our military and its members. This ignorance is manifested in many ways, one of which was demonstrated in the comments of a well-meaning and good-intentioned neighbor.

In truth, most of the guys and gals in today’s military can buy goodies at the Exchanges on or near their operating bases. Which begs the question, “What is the best thing we can send our troops?” In my humble opinion, “RESPECT.”

(End of letter)

The end of the letter, but not quite the end of what I felt like saying. But I try to honor the 300 word limit per letter established by our local paper.

However, this area has become a hotbed of anti-military prejudices because of its proximity to San Francisco, and many of the comments I hear concerning the military are very derogatory. On the day Baghdad fell, the essentially pro-Palestinian Women in Black had an anti-war protest rally in front of the Post Office. As I passed by, one of the Women in Black, my dentist at the time, called me over to argue about the war. Another of the women asked me what I used to do, and I told her I served over 21 years in the Air Force. She then asked, "What did you do after you wasted 21 years of your life?" I got the impression that it would have been OK with her if we didn't have a military, and just let the Soviets take over the world without any opposition.

You don’t have to agree with what our military does, but they are doing it for all of us, even the ungrateful. I have spoken to many people over the years who are ignorant of the military, and are contemptuous rather than thankful. One friend told me we forced Japan to attack us, and events like the Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities prior to Pearl Harbor didn’t mean anything. Another said The Treaty of Versailles was responsible for Nazi atrocities, not the Germans. Their conclusion: we would have been better off if we didn’t oppose the Germans and Japanese with military force.

I sure do beg to differ. Maybe they don't hold freedom and liberty dear, but I do. They don't realize, or care, that "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

They may say "I didn't ask them to do that, they don't do it in my name," but I'm grateful that even our ingrates have the freedom to gripe and bitch incessantly. All that bitching and griping is the sound of freedom. You won't hear it in Iran, or Syria, or North Korea.

The Time To Attack Was Yesterday, But Today Is Not Too Late

I posted this comment today to Dafydd ab Hugh, of Big Lizards Blog

Dafydd

Your analysis, as always, is impeccable, and I would know if it was peccable, because I read all the Left's columnists too.

Simply, Israel must attack Iran. If Israel waits, Iran becomes stronger and the inevitable future war more costly. The fallacy of warfare which has entrapped the West is that you only fight to your opponent's capabilities. A fair fight may excite boxing fans, but the survival of a nation is not sport.

When Israel attacks Iran, we had better be ready to defend from terrorist attacks and attack Iran ourselves. Another fallacy of our times is that a sovereign nation cannot be attacked if it harbors terrorists but doesn't overtly use its own forces. The stupidity of allowing terrorists sanctuary didn't make sense even when North Vietnam had the USSR and China as protectors, and it makes no sense at all now that those two powers are not players.

George Bush the Elder listened to all the smart guys and outsmarted himself. Real politick was born of Cold War cynicism, perpetuating un-democratic states as a balance against the power of others. Nothing is solved, only the tensions are preserved to play havoc another day.

"The time has come, the walrus said..."

Oops, wrong closing.

And you beat me to: "There comes a time in the affairs of a man when he has to take the bull by the tail and face the situation. -- W.C. Fields

So I will close: "In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result." --James Allen

Riches Seek Me Out

"Did you and Aisha enjoy your honeymoon, Mohammed?"

Good fortune continues to seek me out. Just over a month ago I found I had won $1,843,210 in a lottery in which I didn’t even participate.

Tonight I found riches seeking me out from Iraq, from a Mrs. Aisha Mohammed. Where had I heard that name before? Oh yes, Mohammed and his child bride, Aisha. As we students of religion recall, the man who brought us Jihad also was quite a hand with the ladies, and liked to start them young. Muhammad was 52 and Aisha was 9 when he married her and sexually consummated their marriage.

The ancient Aisha was screwed then, but the modern Aisha wants to reverse roles.

The following is an unedited copy of the email I received today informing me of my good fortune.

"From:Mrs MOHAMMED. Attn:The Managing Director Before I proceed, may I humbly introduce myself to your goodself, My Name is Mrs. Aisha mohammed, an Iraqi refugee ,my husband was until recently, one of the personal aid to the president of Iraq who was formerly overthrown out of power Prior to this last serious crisis that is still ravaging in my country,which recently led to misfortune of our government and my late husband position as the personal aid to the president, ,We inherited the sum of US$11 million.The funds were originally gotten from my late husband proceeds. My late husband was able to safe guard the fund with a very good diplomatic contact from my Country and deposited it in thailand. .I have decided to contact you because I am interested in investing in your country which is investment friendly. Please kindly guide and assist me in making the right investment since I am also interested in buying a residential property as I will be moving with my only son musa in over there as soon as every thing regarding technical and logictics details is worked out and ascertained to our respective satisfaction. In view of your participation,I am ready to give you a good negotiable percentage for your assistance,or better still commit it into viable Joint venture projects with you.,be assured that you stand no risk of any kind as the funds belong to me and my only survived son musa. As soon as I get your consent, we will quickly move this fund to your country for investment . However, upon your acceptance to work as my partner, you can contact me with my private e-mail for more details. , I strongly believe that associating with you to embark on this and other business ventures will derive a huge success here after, please include you private contact telephone number and private e-mail when replying. Yours Sincerely. Mrs.AISHA MOHAMMED. aishamohm2@she.com"

My cup runneth over.

What Media Bias?

The Coverts, Joseph Wilson and wife, "undercover" CIA agent Valerie Plame, keeping a low profile in Vogue. This photo was taken about the time that "treasonous" Joe Wilson outed her identity in his entry in Who's Who.

A few months ago a Democrat asked me what I thought about the treasonous act of outing a "covert" CIA agent. I made a simple reply, that no agent was "covert" if they worked at a desk job in CIA Headquarters at Langley for over the past five years. That was not opinion on my part, but a statement of relevant law.

Now a classified program of surveillance of international communications by suspected terrorists, with some of the communications originating or terminating in the United States, has been leaked to the press. This compromise of classified information should be pursued with far more zeal than the Valerie Plame tempest, because it actually damages the security interests of the United States.

A Special Prosecutor must be assigned to subpoena reporters for their testimony to enable the identification and punishment of the leakers.

I am sure the Main Stream Media will pursue this with the same vigor as the Plame "case," because of course they are objective and unbiased.

(In a just released UCLA study of 20 major media outlets, 18 scored left of the average voter, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.)

What media bias?

UPDATE:

Finally it is revealed on Captains Quarters that Valerie Plame was outed by - her husband, Joseph Wilson, in his entry in Who's Who! Of course, that doesn't change the Democrats in their position that outing her was a treasonous act by the Bush administration, even though all the testimony shows Joseph Wilson lied about his wife's involvement in getting him the "yellow cake uranium" assignment, and about what he found concerning Iraqi attempts to purchase it.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle watch begins. Will they report this, as they breathlessly reported all the allegations about Karl Rove? If they report it, how deeply in the paper will they bury it? And of most import, will they draw a parallel between Democrat's charges of treason vis-a-vis the Plame disclosure, and the New York Times disclosure of significant classified information on the National Security Agency monitoring and the SWIFT terrorist financial transactions tracking?

I bet the Chronicle practices its usual policy of selective outrage, reserving it only for bashing the Bush administration.

Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.

UPDATE 2:

The San Francisco Chronicle ran the Washington Post article about Valerie Plame and her husband suing the White House figures without once mentioning that Robert Novack said he got her identity from her husband via Who's Who.

So far, the only mention in the Chronicle was on the Editorial Page, where a Robert Novack column explained his involvement and that he found Valerie Plame's identity in Joseph Wilson's entry in Who's Who. Not surprisingly, the Chronicle didn't find that newsworthy, although anything previously that even hinted of Bush administration involvement merited front page converage. It's amazing how little news sense is found in the Chronicle's newsroom. You would think it would be a huge story that the Special Prosectutor Fitzgerald spent over a year and a lot of taxpayer money on nothing.

Sometimes you learn more from what isn't reported than from what is.

Review Of Global Warming, What You Need To Know

Positive trends in Global Warming

I just reviewed Global Warming, What You Need To Know, narrated by Tom Brokaw, which will premier on the Discovery Channel July 16 at 8 PM. Although the subtitle, What You Need To Know, sounded intriguing, I soon determined what they meant is that I need to know that Global Warming is man made, and that in some vague way some or maybe all of us can solve the problem, or maybe not.

I not only did a review, I did a pre-review I titled Chilling Out Global Warming Hype.

This "Global Warming is man made" sermon was backed by a Mormon Tabernacle-sized choir of scientists, but was remarkably unscientific. Not a scientist, not an argument, was presented that challenged the conclusion that Global Warming is man made, and will have catastrophic impacts on most of the Earth’s life forms - except noxious insects, who will thrive and add to the bedevilment of the unfortunate survivors. Over and over again, scientific observations were presented, and then catastrophe was predicted. Many of the scientists presented what was basically anecdotal evidence, since their observations seemed confined to what they personally observed during the past two or three decades of their work experiences.

The whole effort reminded me of the saying, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” In the absence of dissenting opinion, scientific incest was committed repeatedly. Polar bears were examined, and recent observations showed their average body weight was down about fifteen percent from other observations made in the past twenty years. Global Warming has reduced the amount of sea ice earlier in recent years, making it more difficult for the polar bear to fatten up on seals. Interestingly, in the 1930's there was another period of vastly reduced sea ice in the Arctic, and enough polar bears survived to be imperiled today. The polar bear scientist “cherry picked” the time period, leaving the impression that all was a polar bear paradise before mankind got around to screwing it up.

Much was made of the fact that the global temperature increased one degree Fahrenheit in the past hundred years, but the fact wasn’t disclosed that most of that increase occurred in the first half of the 100 years. The emphasis on anecdotes and recent observations obscured the fluctuations which have occurred even in this century, let alone in the past 1,000 years. The Medieval Warm Period of roughly 1,000 years ago was not mentioned, probably because it is an Inconvenient Truth that it was as warm then as now without the benefit of the internal combustion engine. Then the subsequent Little Ice Age was overlooked, which actually set the stage for our current discussion of the climate warming. Of course it’s warming, or we would still be freezing our butts off!

One of the showcased scientists for man-made Global Warming was James Hansen of NASA. What he didn’t say in the documentary was more interesting than what he said. In an article NASA Extinguishes Global-Warming Fire, By Patrick Michaels, The Cato Institute:

“NASA's James Hansen now predicts precisely the same, small amount of warming in the next 50 years that the much-derided "climate skeptics" predicted all along. According to both the skeptics and Mr. Hansen, the planet is destined for a mere 0.7 degree Centigrade (1.25 degree Fahrenheit) warming between now and 2050. It's a good thing "W" listened to those skeptics before he decided on Kyoto. If he had waited for NASA, he might have committed the United States down the road to an unwarranted economic disaster for no good reason.”

That part of Dr. Hansen’s predictions somehow didn’t find a place in the documentary. This presentation technique is known as “lying by omission.” “Cherry picking the facts.” “Cheating.” I am not a scientist, but I’m sure it is not known as good science. It’s the sort of thing I would expect from a used-car salesman selling damaged goods.

More questionable “scientific” testimony abounded. An Amazon rain forest specialist noted that 2005 was the driest year he had seen in twenty years. I think that would be analogous to a scientist in Oklahoma saying 2005 was the driest year he had seen in twenty years, without mentioning he hadn’t been born in time to observe the Dust Bowl years.

An Australian ranger noted that it was hot in Australia – many fires, nasty drought – yet he didn’t tell us what Australia was like in earlier epochs. Are we to believe that what we observe in our lifetimes is the sum of knowledge?

In February 2006 an island in the South Pacific experienced the highest tide the inhabitants had ever seen. I wonder what high tides their ancestors experienced? Apparently, this vignette was to illustrate that oceans are rising because of Global Warming, although: “No mention was made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.’” Click on the link to see my previous advice to Al Gore that the rising sea levels "Ain't No Big Thing."

The repeated melodramatic special effects of flooded cityscapes – New York City landmarks, London submerged, an island village under water – demonstrated how desperately Global Warming was being oversold. Over and over again, what was presented as “what could be,” morphed into “what would be,” with no regard for other possibilities.

El Niño was presented as a growing menace, even though recent observations indicate that La Niña appears to have the upper hand at the moment. This fact contradicts the Global Warming position that Pacific Ocean heating is out of control.

Hurricane Katrina, of course, was highlighted, although the fact it was a piddling Category 3 hurricane – no big thing – when it hit New Orleans was not mentioned, nor was the fact that poorly constructed levees broke under a force they were designed to withstand. I thought that scientific ethics would have demanded that the multi-decadal hurricane cycle – hurricanes wax and wane in a cycle that stretches over decades – would be mentioned, but it apparently was not a Convenient Truth for the proponents of man-made Global Warming.

The entire “documentary” can be summed up with one word, “dishonest,” but that doesn’t do justice to the presentation. After trading on emotion laden phrases such as man-made Global Warming is an “irreversible problem,” we are at or past the “point of no return” for our climate, “coastal civilization will disappear,” “half of the species will be extinct in fifty years,” we are relieved to find that, miraculously, solving man-made Global Warming is not that hard after all.

“We have the technologies now,” to “come in for a soft landing, not a crash landing.” We can drive hybrid cars, take mass transit (if you live in New York), replace an incandescent light with a fluorescent bulb, and pretend that over two billion Chinese and Indians aren’t industrializing full speed ahead. That’s right, pretty soon they will be consuming fuels to produce energy for their needs just like we have been, only there will be eight of them for each of us, and they won’t have an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mess up their rapid industrialization.

That’s right. America can solve man-made Global Warming simply by turning our economy back to the Stone Age – too much greenhouse gases produced by horses to just go back to the horse and buggy days – which will retard the growth of the Chinese and Indian economies so much that they will be pushed back into a pre-industrial state too.

Or maybe we can all get the energy we need to support a modern life style from wind and solar farms, plus from all the other alternative methods of producing power. However, anyone with a grasp of the enormity of future world energy needs knows that all of the “clean” technologies are actually very polluting in their own way and are totally inadequate to meet demand.

Of course, nuclear power could and would get the job done, but the same illogic that drives scientists to embrace man-made Global Warming also prevents them from mentioning that nuclear is the only viable alternative to the world’s “clean, non-polluting” power needs.

If you watch Global Warming, What You Need To Know, please pay close attention to what is not presented. Science is full of Inconvenient Truths on both sides of the Global Warming issue.

For more of my comments on Global Warming, please go to Bring On Global Warming! and The Four Whorsemen Of Global Warming. But only go to my earlier posts if you really want a fair and balanced look at Global Warming. They are full of the Inconvenient Truths that Al Gore and the "Global Warming is man made" preachers don't talk about.

The reviews below are linked to indicate that I'm not a lonely voice in the wilderness - although being one is usually a good way of being right.

Brokaw Warns..... Bloomberg.com
Senate Committee: Brokaw's Global Warming Special is Biased (Be sure to click on the "Update" link at the bottom)
Senate Majority Press Release
"What You Need to Know" About Brokaw's Global Warming Special
'Global Warming' TV Special 'Misleads Public,' Scientist Says
See the Truth on climate history
Misled again: The Hockey Stick climate

Robert Samuelson knows that if Global Warming is a potential calamity, the only way to minimize it (probably can't stop it) is through engineering, not political moralizing.

To possibly learn, and perhaps even understand, the "Greenhouse Effect," don't go to Al Gore or Tom Brokaw, go to Junkscience.com. Damn, they're good!

"These days, people get bashed over the head with the idea that there is a consensus, and anybody who speaks out against the so-called consensus is a contrarian or a tool of the oil industry or an otherwise morally suspect person." (Iain Murray, a senior fellow specializing in global climate change and environmental science at the free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute)

Al Gore, Tom Brokaw, and other enthusiasts of man-made Global Warming are fond of citing a "consensus" of scientific opinion supporting their position. However, the study they are most enamored of by Naomi Oreskes has more holes in it than Howard Dean's emotional stability.

Point Arena Apprentice Poker Players

The door of the Point Arena Hotel bar (now called the Sign of the Whale) still features the etched “girl in the champagne glass” window. Inside, the long bar on the right looks the same as when Pop and Mom, with Puddles hanging on Pop’s pants leg, would two-step through “The Blacksmith Blues,” or whatever else was playing on the juke box, early 1950’s. It didn’t matter the song or the beat, Pop and Mom with their versatile two-step were up to the occasion.

The Japanese glass fishing net floats still line the top of the mirror behind the bar. When we arrived in Point Arena in 1949, the time when glass floats were commonly found on the beaches had already passed. The hand-blown floats began their journey to the Northern California coast when they were torn or rotted loose from fishing nets in Japan. The floats entered the Humboldt Current and were carried north, then eastward below the Aleutian Islands, down the Alaskan and Canadian coast, and finally washed ashore on Manchester Beach.

The juke box used to be against the wall next to the restaurant entrance, just before where the shuffleboard table had been set against the left wall. That’s where brother Ron and I, still a couple of years from being teenagers, polished skills that few of the bar regulars could top, especially after they had a couple of drinks. In the center of the rear part of the barroom had stood a bumper pool table, another game that Ron and I soon mastered to the point we could easily beat most inebriated adults. And most of the sober ones too.

None of that is there anymore. The big fireplace at the back doesn’t look like it has been fired up since the law was changed and minors were barred from California bars in the mid 1950’s, about the same time it was made legal for Native Americans to buy booze.

A few years ago Alice and I watched a movie, "Life on the Rez,” made by local Pomo Indian high school students. One of the scenes was shot at the door of Sonny’s liquor store next to the Hotel bar. The film narrator, pointing at the bottles of liquor, says “look what the White Man has done to the Indian.” At that point I burst out laughing. The people around me probably thought, “What an insensitive White Man, doesn’t he realize how terrible alcohol is for Indians?” I laughed because I remember how the Indians and other do-gooders thought it was so horrible that Indians couldn’t buy alcohol, so they got the law changed. Bad White Man!

Lest I seem insensitive, I’m an alcoholic who hasn’t had a drop of alcohol in over twenty-five years, with no one to blame but me for my drinking, and I give myself a lot of credit for not drinking now. My mother died of cirrhosis of the liver at age 52, so I do give a damn.

At the back of the barroom is the door to the restrooms. Go through and down past the restroom doors to the door at the back. Go through it, then turn right, go in another door, and you’re in the worst kept secret of Point Arena in the 1950’s, the Point Arena Hotel poker room. It’s not much now, it wasn’t much then. Just a round table with a green felt top surrounded by half a dozen chairs. Gene Price, the son of the owners Fred and Flora Price, would invite me and friends for a game of poker whenever we had a little time on our hands. We’d come in the back way, through the door from the rear parking lot, and have a game of nickel ante, quarter limit, poker. Besides Gene and myself, nicknamed “Kraus,” the usual gang was Chuck “Chaswick” York, Dale “Dink” Withrow, Gene Bowman, and Lester “Fester” Ball. At times we were joined by Rick “Gassy” Arbogast, Bruno Fistolera, and others who I will remember and add as memory serves me. We spent many happy years playing poker to basically trade a twenty dollar bill amongst ourselves.

As an aside, I once accused Lester Ball of cheating. I had forgotten that you don't accuse anyone if they are bigger, stronger, or meaner than you. Lester was all three.

Each of us had our favorite game. Mine was seven-card stud, high and low hand split the pot. Dale was the youngest and most aggressive; he liked five-card, or seven-card, or nine-card No Peekee, where you got all your cards dealt to you face down, and played in turn until you beat the hand before you, or ran out of cards. A pair of aces early meant a lot of raises on every round. You could be into the pot for a lot of money before you saw your first card.

Some of the other favorites were the usual, like draw poker Jacks or better to open, five-card stud, five-card and seven-card stud roll your own hole card, and seven-stud low hole card wild. Some times we played games with an excess of wild cards, like Acey-Deucy or Dr. Pepper, maybe even draw poker with one-eyed Jacks wild, but for the most part we stuck to the basics.

Sometimes our games wouldn't last as long as we wanted. There would be a knock at the door, and a voice would announce, "The big boys are going to play now." Fred Price, Sonny Buti, John Wolstenholm, Spence Withrow, and others, would come in with a sack of silver dollars - Fred Price brought back silver dollars every time he went to Reno - give us a moment to finish and clear our stuff - see who was winning, razz us about something - then the big money would change hands. Before the first hand was dealt, we would be out and looking for our next adventure.

The purpose of our poker games was not to obsess over the twenty dollars we traded back and forth, but to have an excuse to sit down and needle each other and tell stories. We were already into reminiscences, even in our tender teens. We fished a lot together, so we had a lot of fishing stories. We all knew everyone in town, so it was easy to gossip. Our trips to the Garcia River to the good swimming hole at Franci’s were legends in our own minds.

The swimming, and diving from the trees, stumps, and rocks, was just a sidelight of our trips. The most important part was swimming underwater to catch a bunch of crawdads by hand, because that was lunch after we boiled them on the beach in a can we kept hidden in the trees, over a driftwood fire. And the most significant thing about lunch was that it gave us another excuse to sit around and tell more tales, after which we would have - another poker game!

One of the tales we told, and embellished, was about one of our younger days when we bicycled from Point Arena up Windy Hollow Road, and when we crossed the Garcia on the temporary summer crossing bridge, we decided it was too hot and that we needed a swim, even though we hadn’t brought our swim suits. We rode and walked our bicycles up the gravel bar to the Franci swimming hole, took off our clothes, and jumped in. We were soon splashing, diving, and having a great time, when I became aware of a strange sound – feminine laughter. It was easy to spot where the laughter was coming from. The open meadow on the hillside on the south side of the Garcia was covered with squaws and their children, who had walked over to the river from the Garcia Rancheria, the newer of the two Garcia River Indian reservations. They were sitting there on the hillside, pointing and laughing at us. Our bikes – and our now very important clothes – were on the gravel bar on the north side, about fifty feet across in the open from the river bank. Our frolicking and diving stopped. We thought it would not be long before we would have to make a mad rush in the nude across to our clothes, then into the bushes to get dressed. We didn’t know how long our spectators would be there. With us as entertainment, probably as long as we were there to amuse them. It was summertime, and it wouldn’t be dark for seven hours.

We quickly hatched a plan. We told Charley Van Horn’s visiting cousin, Tink, to run and get all of our clothes and bring them to us in a grove of brush we could crawl into from the river bank. Tink made it clear what he thought of our plan. We tried to convince Tink of the logic of our plan. He was the only one of us who didn’t live here, he would be going back home in a week, so he wouldn’t be around to suffer embarrassment like we would. Also, he was the littlest, so he wouldn’t be exposing as much as the rest of us. Tink, however, was inordinately proud of what he would be exposing, and felt in that regard he was as big as or bigger than any of us. Truthfully, at that time, at our ages, our exposure concerns were much ado about nothing. Which was probably why the squaws were laughing so hard.

It didn’t take long for us, lying there now feeling very cold because of inactivity, to come up with our next plan. Draw straws. But when the time came to draw for the short straw, no one would take the chance.

On to the next plan. Every man for himself! We decided on the count of “three” we would all make a mad rush for our clothes. “One, two, three” - no body moved. We counted again, same result. One more time – nothing happened.

At about this point, I realized it would not be long before I wouldn’t have to worry about exposing myself. At the rate my private parts were shrinking, the cold was either going to make them disappear or they were going to drop off. It was then I exhibited the leadership skills that are born of desperation. Under cover of river bank brush, I slipped from the water into the brush, accompanied by laughs and hoots from our audience. The rest of the guys quickly followed. We worked our way through the brush, which had a generous share of blackberry vines, to a point closest to our clothes. There, without too much hesitation, I ran and grabbed my stuff and ducked back into the brush. More laughing and shouting.

Then each of the guys did the same, accompanied by louder and louder laughter and shouts. When we were decently dressed, we quickly and quietly grabbed our bikes and pedaled furiously down the sandbar out of sight.

Once out of sight, it was our turn to laugh. At ourselves.

Even then, I think we all knew another legend had been made.

New York Times Poops On Itself

Where is a New York Times when you really need it?!

Not content with just continuing its highest and best use, which is training puppies to piddle and poo properly, the New York Times now demonstrates an uncanny ability to poop all over itself.

To recap, the New York Times said their disclosure of administration surveillance of terrorist financial transactions was necessary because the administration was too secretive.

Got that? Administration too secretive.

Ok, then the NY Times said there was nothing wrong with their disclosure, because everyone already knew what the administration was doing.

Got that? Administration not too secretive.

The New York Times considered the administration's surveillance of terrorist financial transactions an invasion of the privacy rights of American citizens.

Got that? American citizens' privacy rights invaded.

The NY Times said privacy rights were not invaded, because the terrorists, like everyone else in the world, knew that these transactions were being monitored.

Got that? Absolutely no one's privacy rights violated.

Now that all that is clear, please go to Villainous Company for an delicious eyeful, plus insightful analysis of New York Times historical revisionism. The "newspaper of record" is setting records for contradicting itself.

At this rate of dithering incompetence and incoherence, and adding the financial and journalistic failings of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, we may soon be forced to find suitable puppy trainer substitutes. It won't be an impossible task, but it will be very hard to find anything else so symbolically appropriate.

It's a shame CBS doesn't come in print.

Mexicans Need To Get Mad At Mexico For A Change

Concerning the Mexican elections, I wrote a comment to another blog, Big Lizards, that I thought it would be better if the socialist, Obrador, won instead of Calderón. My reasons were simple and cynical. I thought Obrador would quickly make an even bigger mess of the Mexican economy, and that Mexicans would finally be fed up and fix things.

Obviously, mine is not a popular position, but it should be. "No pain, no gain." America is a nation of tinkers. We like to work on a problem, make a little change here, an adjustment there, take a little nip, put in a little tuck, cobble it together, and muddle through. That’s why we have abominations like paying non-farmers to not farm. Why not non-workers to not work?

Oops, that's right, we're already doing that.

Eventually the best approach to a problem is to tear down the old and build anew. Add Social Security and the Internal Revenue Service to the long list of things that have been and continue to be tinkered, when they really need a mercy killing and rebirth.

Mexico is like a druggie, an alcoholic. No one can cure the druggie or alcoholic but themselves. And to cure themselves, they have to want the cure, which usually means they have to hit rock bottom first before they want to go into recovery. That’s not going to happen as long as the Mexican government does a half-assed job of running the country, and the United States gives Mexicans a way to escape their misery. As it now stands, the government of Mexico owes its continued existence to illegal immigration and the remittances illegal immigrants send back to Mexico.

Almost twenty percent of Mexicans are in the United States, and their remittances in total roughly equal the value of Mexico’s largest export, oil. With the output of Mexican oil fields declining steadily, and the economy of the United States booming, where does that leave the Mexicans? In misery? Or in America?

Why can’t a nation with abundant natural resources, salubrious climate, energetic and hardworking citizens, located next to the richest nation of all time, be prosperous? As Dick E. noted in a comment on Big Lizards, the country has been run “in a manner of speaking” by a stable political party for almost a century. When you compare the progress the United States and Mexico have made in that one hundred years, it is obvious Mexico has made no significant progress. Compare Mexico to South Korea. Half a century ago South Korea was war torn and impoverished. In 2005, South Korea’s per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $20,400, Mexico’s was $10,000. Even Botswana was doing better ($10,500).

Mexico is missing two key ingredients for progress – ending corruption and improving education. And to improve education, Mexico has to end corruption. Let’s try another comparison. Less than 200 years ago Ireland was an impoverished nation of starving people, with civil wars and insurrections. Ireland and Mexico achieved political stability at about the same time, and now Ireland’s educated population produces a per capita GDP of $41,000, seventh highest in the world and almost up with the United States ($41,800).

The students of both South Korea and Ireland achieve high rankings in math, reading, and science, and Mexico is ranked near the bottom in all three categories. Other nations that suffered the devastation of war – Germany, France, Japan, Poland, even Russia – are all ranked higher on both education and economic performance than Mexico. Does it take a war or revolution for Mexico to start getting its act together?

UPDATE: Be careful what you wish for, because some times wishes come true.

"Democratic" López Obrador Threatens Revolution If He Loses, as posted at Big Lizards

Even Al Gore and John Kerry weren't quite this big a sore loser!

UPDATED UPDATE: Yes they are, at least Robert "I'm not the Kennedy in rehab - yet" Kennedy, Jr. is!

Almost two years later, Robert Kennedy, Jr. is still fighting the 2004 presidential election results in Ohio. In Rolling Stone magazine, of all places. Interestingly, many of his conclusions were refuted by the Democratic Party in a study they performed following the election, after which they concluded that President Bush had indeed won Ohio. His conclusions were also refuted in the following Salon.com article.

Was the 2004 election stolen? No. By Farhad Manjoo, Salon.com, June 3, 2006
"In Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election. But the evidence he cites isn't new and his argument is filled with distortions and blatant omissions."

Potpourri For Liberals To Ponder

More WMD has been found in Iraq, and Lieutenant General Michael Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said: “If the chemical agent, sarin, was removed from the munitions and repackaged, it could be lethal. Its release in a U.S. city, in certain circumstances, would be devastating,” Maples said.

I wonder if Democrats will agree that WMD is WMD? It seems that no matter how much of it we find, they still aren’t satisfied that WMD has been found. The reason for the reluctance is quite simple. If they ever admit the truth, they are election-day road kill.

Speaking of Democratic reluctance to face the truth: "It's very difficult to characterize these as the imminent threat weapons that we were told we were looking for," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat.

Ms. Tauscher, President Bush never said we were looking for “imminent threat” weapons. President Bush said: “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

In other words, we’re taking him out before he can get to “imminent threat.”

Next

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters finds that the mobile labs captured early in the war could not have been for hydrogen production, but were most likely mobile WMD facilities as first thought. Another Liberal balloon popped.

Next

Hamas invaded Israel from Gaza and kidnapped an Israeli soldier. When a sovereign nation invades another and kills and kidnaps the citizens of that nation, it is an act of war. Now Hamas wants to use their “spoils of war” to extort Israel to release imprisoned terrorists. Israel says “No, that would only encourage more kidnapping. Instead, we are going to make your lives miserable until you unconditionally return our citizen.”

In light of the fact that Israel won’t be extorted, Big Lizards asks “What should Hamas do?” Take Big Lizards’ quiz and see what recommendations you would make to Hamas.

Next

David Horowitz is campaigning very successfully for an Academic Bill of Rights, as reported by Power Line. In essence it would prevent political or religious issues from being used against students and faculty, and course work should be based on a broad range of information and viewpoints. Further, dissenting viewpoints should be encouraged and tolerated.

Why does the liberal-dominated academic world find these concepts so threatening?



Next

Who is Lieutenant Tom Cotton, and why is his very existence a dire threat to Liberals?

Lt. Cotton is such a damning spokesman against the New York Times betrayal of the security classified SWIFT Program, that Liberals are left with questioning his existence as the only path to reducing his effectiveness.

I think I’ve inflicted enough Liberal pain for one evening.

Not!

Ain't No Big Thing, Al Gore

My nomination for the most destructive book in terms of human suffering is Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” It inspired an almost total ban on using DDT worldwide, causing millions of deaths each year in Africa alone from malaria. Her emotional presentation of pseudo science set back progress in Africa as much or more than any of the other admittedly criminal and foolish things that Marxist African despots have inflicted on their long-suffering subjects.

For the most destructive movie, the envelope please. Tada! It’s Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

As an aside, I get the same feeling when I hear the Democrats spouting “truth” as I did when I heard the Communists name their enslaved nations the “People’s Democratic Republics of Whatever.” It seems the charlatans always cloak themselves in the guise of their opposite. For example, TruthOut.org.

Actually, Al Gore’s desperate attempt to find relevance does not have “legs,” meaning that its shortcomings are already well documented and that his attempt to start a global warming stampede will backfire. In fact, the heightened interest will eventually benefit global warming critics more than adherents, because to this point the main stream media was only interested in the “hype and drama” of the global warming alarmists. Every hot day, every glacier calving an iceberg, each hurricane, dry spell, wet spell, heavy snowfall, El Niño, La Niña, anything and everything was pointed to as a sign of global warming.

National Geographic Magazine must have a policy that every article has to be tied to global warming some way. “Paris fashion models are featuring higher hemlines and aquatic footwear, just the thing when global warming puts the streets of Europe under water.”

However, they may have a long wait. The seas are rising, but they are not rising very fast. “Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.’"

Those United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guys are just a bunch of global warming spoil sports, aren’t they? Take away the rising oceans panic, and you can’t stir up enough fear to “jump and shout, and run about,” can you? Well yes you can, if you’re a Democrat, but not if you are a rational human being.

“1.8 millimeters per year? Good Gawd, Gerty! In 100 years that’ll be four inches! Four inches, Gerty! Do you know how much four inches is?’

Sorry, Gerty, I forgot. Like you always say, ‘Ain’t no big thing.’”

It’s funny Al Gore thinks it is.

Chilling Out Global Warming Hype

I was contacted by Crew Creative Advertising to review “Global Warming, What You Need To Know,” with host Tom Brokaw, which will premier on the Discovery Channel at 8 pm, July 16. I have no idea why I was anointed to review this presentation.

As usual, I will not approach this task with an empty – I mean open – mind. Unlike most Americans, before I view what I believe will be a companion piece to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” I am going to study a lot of material authored by global warming nay-Sayers. In other words, I have already made up my mind, I am marshalling all the forces I can against their man-made global warming hypothesis, and I am pledging that I won’t change my mind. That is, I won’t unless they hit me with something totally new and powerful that destroys all the counter arguments.

Purists would say I should approach my responsibilities with an open mind. However, I am very confident that this documentary was prepared with the intent of demonstrating that global warming exists, and man is the cause. In other words, they had closed minds, just like mine.

Why is my mind closed? The main reason is that I have seen many studies that show that weather has exhibited great variability for a very long period. In the not too distant past global weather has been warmer. In the not too distant past global weather has been colder. In the distant past it has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder. I think that very few scientists believe that human activity caused the last Ice Age, but an Ice Age there was. Then there was global warming, long before there was significant man-caused combustion of fossil fuels.

One thousand years ago we had the Medieval Warm Period. Then, during the past five centuries we had a Little Ice Age, followed by a warming period 1919 to about 1940, then a brief cooling period into the 1970's followed by more warming. Through it all, surface temperatures increased about one degree Fahrenheit. Conveniently, that is about the amount of increase that would be expected when temperature records are recorded at stations adjacent to rapidly expanding cities. For those who don’t catch the implications of temperature readings next to growing cities, let me spell it out – less trees and open fields, more concrete and asphalt, higher temperature readings. D’oh.

Al Gore’s much ballyhooed movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is more notable for the truths that are inconvenient to his global warming thesis that he leaves out, because they contradict or negate what he presents. Also known as lying by omission.

Al Gore claims there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is man made. Not so, as this Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal article proves.

The “man is responsible” global warming crowd have always been big about trumpeting a consensus of scientific agreement, aided by self-serving journals like Science Magazine that refused to retract a faulty study proving “consensus.”

After eight years as Bill Clinton’s vice president, when he and Bill did nothing to solve global warming, Al Gore now finds lots of easy ways to solve the problem now that he is no longer responsible. It’s a pity he didn’t get the job done when he would have been the one criticized for setting our economy and lifestyle back one hundred years.

What I think Al Gore and Tom Brokaw are attempting is to stifle debate on global warming by unleashing a torrent to drown out dissenting opinions. What I’m doing is helping to chill out the global warming hype.

New York Times - Protector Of Intellectually Challenged Terrorists

Powerline recently posted an email from Lieutenant Cotton, an infantry officer in Iraq, concerning the New York Times compromise of the security classified program to monitor and track terrorist international financial activities. In his email Lt. Cotton, a Harvard Law School graduate with experience working in Washington, D.C. law firms, makes several points that bear repeating: “(T)he program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.”

Lt. Cotton then notes that the disclosure by the NY Times increases the danger he and his men face.

Lt. Cotton concludes that he knows the relevant espionage laws, that the NY Times has clearly violated them, and that the United States Justice Department has a duty to prosecute the NY Times to the fullest extent of the law.

For a different perspective on the security compromise led by the New York Times, a recent poll of Americans’ attitudes shows a high level of agreement with Lt. Cotton’s email.

Sixty-six percent of the American people think that “news organizations that report and publish information about national security secrets that may make it easier for terrorist to operate should face criminal charges.” Even 55% of Democrats thought criminal charges should be brought.

“By publishing the story, do you think the New York Times did more to help the American public or more to help terrorist groups like Al Qaeda?” Sixty percent said more to help terrorist groups, and even Democrats were split 42%-42%.

The New York Times is still standing behind their unrelenting sabotage of President Bush and the Iraq War. “This is something the American people need to know,” is followed by “The American people already know about this, so what’s the big deal?” The Times is having its cake and eating it too. “We are providing the American public vital information about something they already know everything about.” (The above NY Times quotes were made up by me, but they catch the essence of the Times’ pronouncements better and clearer than anything the Times has said.)

The Times further finds that the terrorists, like the American people, already know about the program so what use is it?” but at the same time admit that the program has had some notable successes, like the capture of Hambali, the Bali Bombing mastermind. So the Times says the program was successful, but the terrorists, like the American public, already know all about it. I wonder if the terrorists, like the American public, didn’t pay enough attention when this first came out, and didn’t understand all they knew?

Therefore, it was a Times imperative to make sure they got the message. “Hey, you Jihadi dummies, the financial tracking program really works, and here are all the details.'

If a few more of you idiots get caught, President Bush and the war against terrorism are going to start to look pretty good, and that’s the last thing we at the Times and you out there in Jihadi Country want, capiche?” (More truthful made-up Times quotes. Don’t you wish The Times could express themselves as clearly as I do for them?)

In conclusion, the American military, the American public, and I agree that the New York Times and its fellow-travelers violated laws to compromise an effective anti-terrorism program. The Times in their defense say that they did it for no good reason since everyone already knew about it, and the only reason President Bush wants to keep it secret is because it works. The Times thinks that this whole thing is typical of President Bush and his administration, taking advantage of terrorists who are too dumb to protect themselves. The Times protests such unfairness, and will do everything in their power to stop it before it helps Republicans get re-elected.

If you are tired of reading about the New York Times breaking espionage laws, here is a great video to watch: Changing Times, how the New York Times sells out New York to the terrorists.

How Was Our Financial Privacy Violated?

Sachi on Big Lizards asks why such turmoil about monitoring international bank transfers, when all along our banking system has been providing much more detailed and personal information to the IRS and FBI to track money laundering by drug dealers and to catch tax evaders.

The IRS knows I received $10.84 last year in interest on my credit union checking account, and I will be in deep kimchee if that $10.84 doesn’t show up in the total interest earned summarized on line 8 a. of my 1040. The IRS also knows about the embarrassingly dumb investment I made in MicroStrategy a couple of years ago, the same day it lost 90% of its value, because Charles Schwab sent the IRS a detailed summary of my trading and dividends earned. If I ever get called in on an IRS audit (please God, no), I expect the IRS auditor will rib me about the MircroStrategy investment even if it has nothing to do with the audit.

Is there a reason why the Left’s media, New York Times and Los Angeles Times, has kinks in their undies about using bland international bank transfer information to identify, track, and thwart terrorists, yet doesn’t care that the most detailed and personal information about American citizens is passed to the IRS and FBI? It can’t be that the Left thinks that only Republicans are drug dealers, money launderers, and tax evaders.

Perhaps I typed too soon, and they do. But I don’t think so. I think they have the biggest cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome ever recorded, and anything Bush does to fight terrorism will be looked on as a dangerous infringement of privacy. Why would that be? Simple. Bush’s programs might be very successful, terrorism may be sharply reduced, and Bush and the Republicans would get the credit. The Left can’t have that.

Palestinians Are Brats

“What do you think,” asked Alice, “about what Israel is doing in Gaza because Hamas kidnapped their 19-year old soldier?” I answered that Israel was doing the right thing, except they should be doing more, faster.

Palestinians are like children. They have no goals or leadership. After over fifty years of failure of leadership, failure of vision, endemic corruption, and wasted opportunities, all they have is poverty and misery and memories of Yassar Arafat and stories of his world-class wealth. They should be proud that, out of such poverty, Arafat was able to amass such wealth. Anyone can steal when surrounded by riches, but it takes a special thief to prosper so amongst the impoverished.

Like children, the Palestinians were easy to teach all the wrong things. They saw how Israel prospered, and how their Arab neighbors sank further into ignorance and poverty, so naturally they followed the Arab path. They saw how despots like Saddam used violence against his own people and neighbors, and they made him their hero. They saw how the Ayatollahs in Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, tortured and oppressed their own people, and begged for the same for themselves. They saw how, until very recently in Iraq, the only democratically elected Muslims in the Middle East were in the government of Israel, and voted against democracy.

Muslim women are uneducated and oppressed. “That’s the way we like it,” say the Muslim women. Martyrdom is the highest calling for Muslim youth. “We want to die,” say the youth. “We want them to die,” say their parents.

How do you reason with children who have already learned all the wrong things? “Give diplomacy a chance?” What has diplomacy been doing for the past fifty years? Failing, that’s what. Then why should it work now?

Didn’t Einstein say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results was a sign of insanity?

Children frustrate parents when the children have learned all the wrong things, and then the parents want to change their behavior. What good is it to tell them they won’t get what they want with a temper tantrum, when a temper tantrum has always worked?

The world has been harsh on Israel for trying to protect its people from violence, and easy on Palestinian terrorists for perpetrating violence. The United Nations has censured Israel, and condoned the attacks that have provoked Israeli retaliation. Much as we speak of children who can’t control their impulses, so the world expects nothing good from Palestinians, and are never disappointed.

"Treason Is No Vice" -- But It Is Illegal

The following letter appeared in the Letters to Editor section of the San Francisco Chronicle, June 28, 2006. The bold print items are my interjected responses to his remarks. At the bottom is the letter I sent the Chronicle in response to Mr. Cripe’s letter. I am hopeful, as always, but it will probably meet the fate of all but two letters I have sent the Chronicle these past many years.

(UPDATE: My letter ran in the July 1, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle! Oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen! (My joy and unforeseen rapture are tempered by the realization that many years will pass and many more electrons will be wasted before my next letter will be published. Each happiness attained contains its seed of sadness.)

My blog is worthwhile to me, even if for no other reason than my letters will not suffer death eternal in the electronic trash can of an assistant to the assistant Letters editor. At least one other person somewhere out there in the blogosphere will see what I considered so important that I invested time and emotional energy to register. Agree, disagree, couldn’t care less, at least in some small way a line was drawn, a flag was raised, a disunity of opinion was recorded.

Here begins the letter:

'Treason against tyranny is no vice'

Editor -- House homeland security committee Chairman Peter King called the New York Times' reports on two secret surveillance programs "treason." It is revealing that the cause of this treason are the views of his political opponents. Terrorism is a legitimate threat, but it is not the only threat.

No, the cause of this treason is the unlawful compromise of classified information by its disclosure and dissemination. A view is an opinion, a law is a law. Terrorism may not be the only threat, but aiding terrorism in wartime is treason.

When a closed government acts in a secret and unrestrained manner against its citizenry, whatever its professed goals, it creates the appearance of tyranny, and is of great public interest to scrutinize. This scrutiny can only be called treasonous if tyranny has indeed returned to our shores.

Our government is not closed. Congressional leaders of both parties were informed of both programs and apprised of their progress, including their purpose, scope, and safeguards. Its unlawful disclosure is called treasonous because it aids the terrorists, and does nothing to safeguard any rights of our citizenry.

As an acid test of this last point, even the New York Times has not shown even one instance where rights were violated.

The National Security Agency program was only against citizenry who had contacts with known or suspected terrorists, and the SWIFT program did not involve any identifiable American citizens at all.

The administration was doing what the 9/11 Commission said should be done. Today’s critics are the same ones who castigated the administration for not doing more of this sort of thing to prevent 9/11.

I would remind Rep. King and his supporters that long before this war on terrorism, the American and French founders initiated the much bigger war against tyranny. This war was not ended with the defeat of the monarch. Our founders warned constantly of the enduring and seductive power of tyranny, particularly tyranny in the pursuit of a noble goal.

Tyranny is too fine a word to be so grossly abused. A tyrant is one who has no legal power to rule. President Bush is an elected leader of the United States. His administration gained the cooperation of an international banking consortium through legal means. I doubt even the Left thinks he can extend his “tyranny” to the control of SWIFT.

The details of a legal surveillance program were disclosed in violation of our laws. The consequences of the disclosure are a reduction in the effectiveness of finding and tracking terrorist activities, and the consequences of reduced effectiveness are more deaths caused by terrorists.

Tyranny is seductive because it is always the shortest path to that goal. But support of tyranny, even to achieve noble results, is anti-American. According to our founders, treason against tyranny is no vice. We must not cut and run in the war against tyranny.

Is it tyranny for an elected official to use legal means to prevent murder by terrorists?

ERIC CRIPE, Pacifica

My letter to the editor, as yet and probably for all time unpublished:

Eric Cripe, Pacifica, (Chronicle Letters June 28, 2006) paraphrased Barry Goldwater, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” to arrive at the statement that: “According to our founders, treason against tyranny is no vice.” Such sophistry should not pass without comment. The treason our founders committed was against the tyranny of England; they would not have justified treasonous acts against democratically elected leaders.

Since Mr. Cripe objects to the tyranny of the majority, he may commit acts of treason but in the understanding that he is breaking the law. For that he should expect punishment as a rightful consequence. If our laws are bad, we have a democratic process for changing them. Any other process is anarchy, or vigilantism. “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”