More Tuesday Musings

In the wake of the July 23 CNN/YouTube Democrat debate, we have learned some important things.
Number 1: Edwards has actually been right on one thing - they need to thin down the ranks of candidates. He was wrong, though, to include himself in the short list of competitors. Not even the best-paid hairstylist on his staff could add volume to his dismally low numbers. Although, Gravel and Kucinich do add comedic value. And poor Biden - bless his heart - has come to realize that his numbers are so low that he can actually say what he really thinks.
Number 2: Republicans should not go near this debate format with a ten-foot pole. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, we don't need political discussions mediated by people dressed as snowmen. For that matter, why even go near any debate sponsored by CNN or MSNBC? Democrats won't do a Fox News-sponsored debate. In all fairness, though, the questions from this last debate were about on par with those asked by Chris Matthews.
Number 3: Democrats all support broadening the draft to include women. What? While I am sure that the militant feminists herald this move as breaking down one of the last bastions of the stifling patriarchy that dominates this country, is your average mother or young woman going to be gung-ho for this plan? War is all hell. Is that what we also want to subject our young women to? And what happens when both a husband and wife/father and mother are drafted? I don't claim to be any kind of a political strategist, but I don't think it would take a Harvard degree to create a homerun campaign commercial out of that tasty morsel.
Number 4: Obama really is all form and no substance. Does this guy have anything even remotely resembling a reasoned strategy regarding leading this country? What was with that comment about how he would grant face time immediately to all of the sociopathic dictators of the world? What's next, inviting Ahmadinejad to come spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom? This was such a major screw-up, even Hillary pounced. This approach to foreign policy has all the insight as Kucinich's "Department of Peace." So far, all this guy has in the way of combating worldwide islamic terrorism is to talk with the leaders of rogue nations that sponsor terrorism and make sure that our first responders have good health insurance. He literally does make Hillary Clinton look downright hawkish.

In other liberal insanity, it looks like, in the name of art, you can immerse a cross, a holy symbol for much of the Christian world, in urine, and you are hailed as avant-garde. If, however, at Pace University you toss a Koran into a toilet, you are arrested on the charges of perpetrating a hate crime. The only religion liberals seem to show any respect for is Islam, and yet, should the Islamic extremists take over the western world and topple the great Satan, who do you think stands the most to lose? Social conservative Christians, or feminists and liberals?
But just ask Rosie O'Donnell. Fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as these fundamentalist Muslims. That's why when Madonna made a video to her "Like a Prayer" song where she cavorted about with a Christ-figure, or when she staged her own crucifixion on stage in Rome, or when Sinead O'Conner ripped a picture of the pope on Saturday Night Live, we saw the whole Christian world erupt with violent protests as people rioted and killing was widespread, as well as death threats against musical entertainers. No wait, that was what happened when a Danish periodical published cartoons about Mohammed. With Madonna and O'Conner, I believe the response from Christians was either ignoring them and their fading careers, or by writing some very strongly worded letters, or even boycotting their music. It got downright scary at times! Contrast that to Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who had his throat slit for working on a film critical of Islam.

Tuesday Musings

I purposely avoided the Dem's debate last night, and will probably also avoid the Republican CNN/YouTube debate. While Dem's still like to think that there is no such thing as a stupid question, people with at least half a brain realize that this trite inanity was clearly devised by someone who clearly asked too many stupid questions. Now remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
For the 3 minutes I watched, I was rewarded with hearing one idiot who worked at Planned Parenthood asking whether the candidates instructed their children properly in sex education, and whether they used anatomically accurate terminology. What? I'm sorry, but this has all the relevance in a political debate as "Do you wear boxers or briefs?" You see now why I feel justified in my belief that this was a moronic idea for a debate format? There was a reason the founding fathers decided upon a representative form of government, rather than a true democracy, and why they also had the wisdom of slipping in that safeguard of an electoral college, in case some of the stupids got through. It is also why they decided on a winner take all strategy in elections, rather than apportioning the seats in government based on the percentage of the vote that each party gets, like you see in places like Germany, where periodically some fringe party gets a say in things.
What really got me to change the channel was the people sitting at their computers, making their videos, asking what they were supposed to do, being so poor, and unable to afford health care, or the woman who asked what her poor mother was supposed to do about health care. Here are a few thoughts for you. Number one, if your parents are sick, and can't make ends meet, why don't you help them out? They raised you, supported you. Is it too much to ask to lend a helping hand when you can? This is what got me about Obama's answer, where he talked about his poor mother suffering through a critical illness, without the financial means. His mother died in 1995, by which point he was a lawyer and lecturer of constitutional law. He couldn't spare a few dollars? Secondly, for you people who supposedly can't afford health insurance, how is it you can afford the computer and the high-speed internet access to record your videos and post them on YouTube? I realize that some people have legitimate reasons for not being able to afford an insurance plan, but how many are simply waiting for someone to come pick up the tab for them?
Finally, it seems that Dems in Congress are being pressured to remove a part of a piece of legislation for homeland security that would protect people from prosecution who come forward with information about suspicious activities that they believe may pose a risk to national security (e.g. the "flying imams"). It seems that we need protection for whistleblowers in the CIA and FBI who expose top secret, sensitive information that is critical to national security, especially if it besmirches the Bush administration, and we won't prosecute a lying stripper who maliciously destroys the names of white, privileged Lacrosse players, but if someone comes forward to report activities that they believe, in all good faith, might pose a risk to others, well, they are all on their own.
That guy that blew open the plot against Fort Dix had better watch out. A lawsuit might be coming his way, and he won't be able to count on the Dems looking out for him. They're too busy fumigating the cots for their next slumber party.

Joe and Val's Bogus Adventure

You really have to feel for the Plame/Wilsons. What are they going to do now for publicity? I mean, I guess Conyers is beating their dead horse in Congress still, but is anybody paying attention to that? Maybe George Clooney or Michael Moore can make a movie on their sorry situation.
The judge dismissed the case as having no merit, but he left this parting shot, that when someone impugns the motives of the Executive branch, officials in the Executive branch are within their rights to challenge the voracity of such allegations. This is what happened in this case, pure and simple.
The whole case centered around lying, but not the lying of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The lying began with the Plame/Wilsons themselves. Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam had sought yellowcake from that country. Wilson was sent by the CIA, but he originally claimed that it was at the behest of the Vice President's office. This was his first lie. He compounded that lie with others, including the idea that his trip was to refute a document that supposedly confirmed the claim of Saddam approaching Niger. The document did, in fact, prove to be false, but Joe Wilson had no way of knowing this prior to his trip, since the document did not surface until after his trip, as he begrudgingly had to admit before a bipartisan Senate commission.
Joe Wilson's actual report, in fact, did not refute the claims. If anything, the actual report that he turned into the CIA strengthened the claims. Only his verbal statements later sought to refute the claims.
In light of his painting the administration in such a bad light, and his claims that his trip was at the request of none other than Dick Cheney, reporters started to question why the administration would have done something so stupid as send a second-tier diplomatic hack like Wilson in the first place. Robert Novak talked with Richard Armitage in the State Department, a man who publicly opposed the actions of Bush and Cheney. Armitage cleared the muddied waters by explaining that Cheney hadn't asked for Wilson to go. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and had suggested her husband.
Valerie Plame denied this, and was caught in her lie when a memo surfaced that showed that she had, in fact, recommended her husband. Novak sought to verify this, and talked with other people, who also confirmed it. Nobody was trying to out Valerie Plame. Armitage revealed the information because he thought Plame was just a desk jockey at the CIA. She hadn't been in the field in years, and was no longer undercover.
In light of the fact that the Wilsons lied so much to support their story, it was justified for the truth to come out. Democrats, though, think that they should be protected when they lie to slander George Bush. We'll make up the lie, perpetrate it, use it as the biggest weapon in our arsenal to beat the president with over the justification for going to war, and if you dare expose our lie, we will demand blood. That is the whole situation in a nutshell. Libby was peripheral. He had some conversations with some reporters on the subject, and mixed up the order of when he talked with each person, and so Fitzgerald took him to court.
So when will we see the prosecution of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame for their perjury?

Any Wonder Their Approval Rating is 14%?

What Democrats think:
"It is time for someone to manage the war, and we're ready to do it." Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in debate on the Senate floor during the all-night filibuster from July 17-18, 2007.

What the Constitution of the United States of America says:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States . . ." U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2

I don't know if Democrats don't know the Constitution, or just figure that enough people out there are too stupid to catch them when they try to so flagrantly violate it. My guess is a little bit of both. But what else is new from the party holding hearings on how shamelessly President Bush uses his ability to appoint and fire political appointees for political reasons, or his constitutionally guaranteed power to pardon.
So now that this latest bout of theatrics has accomplished exactly nothing, what is next in their little bag of tricks? For the party that was going to turn things around in Washington, riding this great "mandate" of the American people, they haven't been able to pull so much as a dust bunny from their magic hat. Earmarks and corruption continue. The only legislation anybody can list that has passed both houses was the minimum wage increase. The powers this Democrat-majority in both the House and the Senate wields against a "lame duck" president is, to say the most, wholly unimpressive. Nobody cares about their hearings. They idiotically choose Bill and Hillary Clinton, of all people, to lead the charge against the Libby sentence commutation. Maybe they can sign up Saddam Hussein to lobby against the death penalty. And who do they get to testify in the hearings about the Libby sentence commutation? Joe Wilson. Can somebody pass this guy a note to let him know that his 15 minutes are up? I love how he had no answer when a Republican member of the committee asked him to comment on the fact that no underlying crime was ever found to have been committed.
It appears that John Edwards much touted Poverty tour is not doing a single thing for him. Poor people seem to think Obama can do more for them. Maybe this has to do with the fact that Obama has probably never spent over $1000 for a haircut. Please, John Edwards is as much a populist man-of-the-people as Louis XVI. Honestly, if he cares so much for the poor, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is? Instead of demanding that the rest of us working people do our part, why doesn't he take some of that money of his that he uses to build entertainment barns attached to his house and go help people. How many families in these rural areas he is visiting could he cover the medical costs for with what he paid in construction costs for his personal squash court alone? William Jennings Bryan he is not.
As for Obama, yes, he is bringing in donation money in record amounts from record numbers of donors. And yet he still lags behind Hillary. Maybe Oprah can change that, but I'm doubting it. Of course, Hillary can't even carry her own water. When it is time for the heavy lifting, she has to bring Bill back into it. So, should she be elected, who is really going to be running things? If things get tough, will she have to get Bill to take over, just as he is with her campaign?

Stop the Insanity!

This latest idea of the Democrats, pulling an all-nighter in Congress, to get Republicans to agree to a retreat from Iraq has all the makings for being as effective a tool as John Lennon's and Yoko Ono's sleep in. I guess the one major difference, though, would be that, based on their approval ratings, more people cared about John and Yoko than Reid and Schumer.
So let me understand this. Back when the surge was still in the planning and approval phases, Democrats were fine with waiting for a progress report in September before their knee-jerk denunciations, but now that we are seeing progress, we can't possibly wait another day? The second the final troops for the surge landed and barely were able to change into their desert fatigues, Democrats declared the war over. This would be comparable Democrats calling for a retreat from the Normandy invasion just as the Allied forces had established a beachhead.
The Anbar and Diyala provinces were once written off as being beyond help, and firmly in the hands of the insurgents and terrorists. Al Qaeda had a free hand in these provinces. Now, with the surge barely under way, American forces have already begun to reclaim these areas, and Sunni tribal leaders are defecting from the ranks of al Qaeda supporters. But clearly the surge is accomplishing nothing, because we don't have profit-sharing legislation in place yet for oil revenues. Imagine how idiotic it would have sounded if we had said during World War II that the invasion of Europe was doomed to failure because Germany was having difficulties balancing their budget. Yes, the governmental benchmarks will be necessary for solidifying the situation in Iraq, but we first have to make sure that the people can feel safe enough to walk out on the streets to spend all this new-found wealth once profit sharing is enacted.
Democrats foam at the mouth when Republicans accuse them of being soft on national defense. They denounce Republicans as questioning their patriotism when their motives behind putting union interests over national security are brought into the national debate. They become uncontrollably self-righteous and sanctimonious when Ann Coulter's columns and comments are taken so out of context and edited beyond all comprehension to make it sound like she wants them dead. But when Congressman Ellyson, the new Democrat member of the House who is the first Muslim elected to Congress, compares George Bush to Adolf Hitler and Republicans to the Nazi party, they don't even bat an eye. In addition, Ellyson's comments suggest that he believes that George Bush, and not Osama bin Laden, was behind the 9/11 attacks. This is what he did when he compared the 9/11 attacks to the burning of the Reichstag in Germany in the 1930's. He claimed that both events were used to inflame the public against an enemy, in the case of the Germans, the communists, and with Bush, islamic terrorists. Many historians also believe that Hitler staged the fire to solidify the power that he and his party held over the country. So in Ellyson's eyes, Bush equals Hitler, and 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush to drum up false support to falsely take the war to terrorists. Oh, if only we didn't have pesky evidence, like Osama himself taking credit for 9/11. Or does Ellyson believe, perhaps, that this was all fabricated by the Bush administration on the same sound stage that they filmed the lunar landing? Democrats really have no shame.

Clearing Up Some Misconceptions

For starters, I'd like to clear up this myth that Joe Biden has built up that, if only the Iraqi government could pass this profit-sharing of oil revenues legislation, then the "insurgent" problem would clear itself up. While terrorism and Islamic fanaticism certainly burns the brighter in poverty, the most recent attempts in London prove that this is not a prerequisite, as several of the perpetrators were doctors - not exactly at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.
At the same time, though, it also brings into question some of Michael Moore's assertions regarding nationalized health care systems, such as they have in England. If it is such a great system, why are doctors over there so gung-ho about major career changes - say, to suicide bomber? And now that their overtaxed health care system is short even more doctors, don't expect the wait to get any shorter for that MRI.
If we were to use the same measurement that the Democrats are using to judge the success of the Iraqi government against the Democrat Congress, I think we would be all clamoring for a phased withdrawal from their control of Congress. While the progress of the Iraqis has been modest at best, so far, in over 7 months in office, Democrats have managed only a modest increase in the federal minimum wage, a move that was primarily symbolic, since most states already have in place minimum wages higher than the new federal level. The Shias in control can't work together with the Sunnis to get critical measures passed? The Democrats in control can't work together with the Republicans to get critical measures passed. And the Democrats don't even have the added pressure of armed militants around them (unless you count Jim Webb's aides smuggling guns onto capitol hill).
I apologize in advance for my next comments about John Murtha, who, as a war veteran, is perfect in every conceivable way, and is completely immune to any criticism on matters even remotely related to the military. That said, it now looks like John Murtha is up for the Mike Nifong travesty of justice award. You remember how resolutely Murtha condemned the Marines in the Haditha shootings? He had weighed all the evidence (even though he did not have all the evidence) and determined that a war crime had been committed by the Marines. Now it turns out that a Marines officer charged with looking at the evidence (this person actually saw all of it, unlike the infallible Murtha) and providing a recommendation whether charges should be filed, has determined that at least one of the marines in question acted in a way completely in accord with military conduct and the rules of engagement. It turns out that the officer found that the witness statements were contradictory and not trustworthy. In his opinion, while the death of innocents in war is always a travesty, it should not be unexpected when battling an enemy that regularly hides among civilians and stages attacks while using civilians as human shields. In the heat of battle, a soldier has to make his best judgement. But Murtha knows better:
"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."
My final note of the day. I have some praise and some objections to recent comments by Pope Benedict XVI. Recently the Pope issued high praise for the Boy Scouts organization. Its good to see that some people in this world still recognize a good and honorable organization and give it the praise it deserves. As an Eagle Scout, I continue to support the organization and its integrity in staying true to its founding principles. My objections to the pope are his recent denouncing of other Christian churches as not being "churches" (with the exception of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches). I don't begrudge the Pope or the Catholic Church their right to assert that theirs is the one true and complete Christian Church. I don't share this view, as I believe that my own religion is the only true and living church. But to dismiss other Christian faiths as merely "ecclesial organizations" is going a bit too far. I will grant the pope the right to profess his belief in the supremacy of his beliefs, but I will not allow the monopolizing of a word. Just as I object to the many misinformed people out there who deny the characterization of Mormons as Christians, I also object to the pope denying the characterization of other Christian faiths as churches.

On the War and Other Casual Topics

So before, the reason we shouldn't be in Iraq was because it was primarily a civil war. Now the complaint is that it was drawing more terrorists. So which is it? In addition, as I heard today on the Bill Press show (a liberal talk radio show of the Sirius satellite radio liberal talk station), most of the people now being targeted by the "insurgents" are American soldiers. Does that sound like a civil war to you? When the primary target is not your fellow countrymen, are you really engaged in a Civil War? My memory may be faulty, but the one shining example of a Civil War that comes to my mind was our own. In that conflict, it was American fighting American. Should the South have fired first on, say, Mexico City, rather than Fort Sumter, would it have been a Civil War?
So in the wake of the surge beginning in earnest, this liberal talker was also quite distraught that the majority of those being attacked now are American soldiers. And this is news to him? Hey, big news to you libs out there who are wholly ignorant of what happens in a war. When you have two sides attacking one another, most of your casualties are going to come from those two sides. Thus, during the Battle of the Bulge, during World War II, the majority of casualties inflicted by the Germans were Americans and British, and not Argentinians. During the Battle of Gettysburg, lo and behold, the Northern Armies primarily targeted the Confederate Armies, and not the Canadians. Stop me if I'm going too fast for you. Obviously the number of American casualties will increase when our offensives increase. Thus it was that we also saw a significant increase in American casualties during World War II after we got into the fight. Funny how that works. You cannot have a bloodless war. Only completely intellectually dishonest people think that you can stage such actions without loss of life. Don't bother sending me your tired old chickenhawk accusations.
War is not the answer? Well, now, that really depends on what the question is, doesn't it? It certainly seemed to be the right answer for solving the question of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Your much beloved diplomacy worked wonders there. Diplomacy got us the enabling of Hitler and his "Final Solution" for the Jews, the takeover of Czechoslovakia and Austria, and the launching of World War II. The actions of the Allied forces did more to restore peace to Europe than all the diplomacy. Diplomacy has given us a nuclear North Korea. Diplomacy is very close to giving us a nuclear Iran. Diplomacy is giving us genocide in Darfur. Diplomacy turned Iran from an ally of the United States to one of its greatest enemies. Diplomacy gave Gaza back to the Palestinians. That has been a smashing success. Actually, when weighed in the balance of history, it appears that, in fact, diplomacy is not the answer. More people have been killed in this world when the United States military has not intervened than when they have.
In other news, at least the top 3 Democrat presidential candidates have signed on to a gay issues debate to be moderated, at least partly, by Melissa Etheridge. It will be fun to see them squirming as they try to nuance their way around their views. Maybe Hillary can rehash her erroneous accusation as to why HIV/AIDS has not yet been cured. Before it was because we Americans don't care about blacks. Now she can tailor it to the gay community. It will also be fun to see what new false promises they will offer up to seal the loyalty of a group that they really aren't in any danger of losing. It will be fun to see if Hillary actually gets behind gay marriage. I have no doubt Edwards will. The man has the backbone of a jellyfish, and will pander to any interest group he can to get ahead.
And finally, a word on Senator Vitter, the first name identified from the D.C. madam's phone records. The Republican Senator stole some of the thunder by coming out first and admitting that his was probably one of the numbers on the list. This is an issue that he and his wife will have to work out, and apparently has already been brought to light between them. In my own opinion, though, I would like to see the Senator step down. My reasons are twofold. First, I have an inherent lack of trust in a man who cannot honor the vows he takes at the marriage altar. If he cannot be true to his wife, how can I really trust that he can be true in his public service? Second, if he wants to save his marriage, it will be a serious matter, and I cannot believe that such an undertaking will not impact his ability to serve his constituents appropriately. I know that the idea of marital infidelity is not quite as sacrosanct as it once was, as we now live in an age where celebrities change spouses more frequently than they change agents. And I know that, especially in light of some of the more public actions of a certain former President during his term in office, there is this idea that matters of sex are harmless and do nobody any harm. I don't believe it. If you can't be true to your husband/wife, I don't trust you to be true to me. And I don't want you in a position of power.

Beware Global Cooling . . . or Warming!

I was a little annoyed yesterday, having lugged my raincoat into work, in anticipation of the thunderstorms that the Weather Channel told me to expect. As I looked out my window, I saw blue skies with a few cotton candy-looking clouds. Not a thunderbolt in sight. This is my first point. How many of us are really surprised anymore when the meteorologists are off on their weather predictions? Sometimes I think it might be nice to have a job where you can be wrong so often and yet not be out of a job.
Then I think about the predictions for last year's hurricane season. Going into the season, Professor William Gray of Colorado State University, who was acknowledged for his expertise in such predictions, called for 17 named tropical storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of which would be major. Instead, we saw only 9 named tropical storms and a total of 5 hurricanes, none of which were major (category 4 or 5). That is my second point.
In 1975, Peter Gwynne wrote an article for Newsweek magazine where he talked of the famines that were then being predicted by scientists due to global climate change. And the culprit? Global cooling. Seems that temperatures had dropped by .6 degrees from the early 1940s to the 1970s. Within as little as 10 years, the entire earth could have been in the middle of a global inability to feed itself due to the impact that this drastic change in temperature would have on farming practices. What was one of their proposed solutions? Melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot! But this time they've got it right. And, besides, Al Gore tells us it is so. His bachelor's degree in government makes him an expert on the subject. This is my third point.
What am I trying to say with all of this? That all of these people lecturing us on global warming and the hazards we face if we don't revert to pre-industrial revolution living standards within the next five years might - just might- be wrong. They can't accurately predict the weather one week in advance, or the expected storms one year in advance. But we all believe, without question, that they can predict the entire climate of this planet more than 10 years from now? Based on half of a degree change over the course of a decade? And we should accept it all, of course, because it is published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in Academy-Award winning documentaries? Let's not forget the recent debacle with the Korean scientist who claimed to have successfully cloned, but who later had to retract his study. That was published in one of the most highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journals on the planet.
So forgive me if I don't sign on to the hype. Do I want to see the planet polluted? No. I try to do my part. I buy cars that will get me the best gas mileage that I can afford. I calculate the mileage that I get out of my car regularly, and try to keep it well maintained so that I can get the fuel efficiency even higher. So you'll forgive me if I change the channel when Madonna lectures me from a stage in London about what I'm not doing, as she drives her multiple cars and SUVs. I switch off lights in my house when they aren't in use, and keep my house just a little bit warmer than I would absolutely like, in order to save energy. So I hope you don't mind that I ignore Al Gore, who consumes more energy in his house in one month than most people do in over a year. I flush my toilet and send my waste to the city sewers, where man-made technology does what it can to limit the impact on the environment of that waste. So I'll thank you very much to not lecture me on how I should listen to the rantings of Dave Matthews, who dumps the waste from his tour bus whenever he gets over a river in Chicago. In my own selfish, fiscally minded way, I do more to combat global warming and limit my carbon footprint on this planet than any jet-setting, carbon offset-buying, tree-hugging, platitude-spewing, environmentalist Hollywood actor/musician/pseudo-scientist or has-been politician out there. And I don't subject them to any junk science powerpoint presentations. Why don't they afford me the same consideration?

Private Jets for Climate Change

It's amazing that Al Gore could, with a straight face, claim that his Live Earth concerts would promote a change in global warming. Let's just ignore the fact that it generated less than stellar enthusiasm world-wide. They were giving away tickets to the German event with travel packets. South Africa had a difficult time filling their venue. And what was with those scientists playing that horrible sound down there in Antarctica?
First off, as was noted in another article, I think they probably had to lock up Tipper Gore when they were picking the lineup. What would her PMRC group have said about T-Pain performing his hit "I'm in love (Wit a Stripper)" or the headlining Foo Fighters whose most recent hit was a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki," ironically one of the songs that set Tipper off in the first place in her crusade against vulgarity in music?
But let's consider the irony that an event to highlight man's impact on the environment generated 31,500 tons of carbon emissions. The group that came up with this figure notes that the average British household, in contrast, generates only 10 tons of carbon emissions in an entire year. Additionally, while supposedly all of the waste generated was to be recycled, at least one venue has already admitted that their recycling abilities would only be able to handle, at most, one third of all garbage generated, and that the rest would go into landfills. Way to champion the environment. Finally, consider the fuel expended by all of the acts for these shows as they traveled in private jets to and from the events. Consider that a Gulfstream jet expends more fuel in one hour of flight than your average privately owned automobile consumes in a year. But us normal people are the real problem. How many trees are we supposed to plant to offset the carbon emissions from this concert? And then Al Gore has the nerve to tell us that we need to get active and encourage our governments to sign on to a treaty to cut greenhouse gas pollution by 90 percent? How about we start by banning blowhard musicians from jetting around the world for pointless concerts to highlight the big acts of yesteryear?
I don't think Al Gore really realizes what it would take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent. By one liberal estimate, if we were to ban all automobiles and gas stations in the United States, we could only cut these gases by ~30%. To achieve 70%, we would have to eliminate all energy sources except for nuclear reactors, dams, windmills, and solar panels. This means that Madonna, one of the headline acts at Live Earth, would have to give up her Mercedes, 2 Land Rovers, Audi, and her Mini Cooper. That's right, you wouldn't even be able to drive your Prius. So by reducing ourselves to third world status, we could only cut these emissions by 70%. And don't look for the eco-freaks to allow more nuclear reactors, even though the much-venerated French generate a large proportion of their energy from these reactors, and have miraculously avoided a Chernobyl-like catastrophe.
This is what happens when you get your policies from musicians and celebrities, any ten of which most likely don't even have a high school diploma to split amongst themselves. With all of the jeers from the left of how stupid Bush is, lets not forget that he did better in college than Gore, the man that is now the planetary expert on climate change. This despite the fact that he claims that the ice caps on Kilimanjaro are receding from global warming, even though temperatures atop the mount remain below freezing, and scientists have pretty much definitively proven that the receding glaciers atop the mountain are the result of fluxuations in solar radiation, and not rising temperatures.
One more note. It appears that Cindy Sheehan couldn't stay out of the spotlight too long, and is now threatening to challenge Nancy Pelosi for her house seat in '08 if she does not move on impeachment proceedings for Bush within the next 2 weeks. Pelosi, of course, won't do this, because she knows that it will be political suicide. So I am looking forward to Sheehan challenging her. I might actually donate to that campaign. In fact, if Sheehan throws her hat into the ring, I think Bush should go on the attack and actively campaign for Pelosi (would it really be that much different than his shilling for Lincoln Chafee?). What would be more of a guarantee for a Democrat to lose an election than to have President Bush campaigning for you?
And, finally, the Democrats are once more taking up the issue of funding for Iraq, after every other legislative attempt of theirs since coming into power has flopped. So if they gave in before, what makes them think they can out bluff Bush this time? Your odds of winning in the game of chicken decrease significantly with every time you flinch. My prediction is that the Democrats will not pass one significant piece of legislation by the '08 elections. They are already on track for proving me right.

Sometimes Truth is Stranger than Fiction

So now we know how Democrats get such good press coverage - they sleep with the reporters. At least that seems to be the strategy of LA's Democrat mayor, sleeping with a news reporter for Telemundo who also happened to cover stories on him. I think John Conyers should open an investigation into that. He seems to have plenty of time for pointless investigations lately. The Democrats obviously haven't been as busy enacting their policies in Washington as they claimed they would be. I mean, honestly, the entire Congress could probably take the whole year off and get better approval ratings than what they are now polling at.
I will not make any comments about Al Gore's son being picked up speeding and smoking pot and possessing a virtual pharmacy of drugs, except to ask how many carbon offsets he will need to purchase to make up for all the carbon dioxide he released into the atmosphere while puffing the magic dragon? Maybe this should be something the EPA should look into. Or does the fact that he was speeding in a Prius offset that? I think the bigger question on everybody's minds is this: Did his Prius have the necessary "Impeach Bush" and "Endless/This War" bumper stickers? Honestly, I like his sister more. At least she helped make the incredibly funny "Futurama."
In light of the recent attack attempts in London and Glasgow, the most important thing that has been driven home to all of us is this: let's not be hasty in linking these attacks to Islam. That's right. The fact that the perpetrators of these attempted attacks are devout followers of the "Religion of Peace" has no bearing on the situation whatsoever. So why is it that Muslims and Hollywood can blast Christianity in general over the crusades, but we must be super careful to point out that Islamic terrorists are a minority fringe of their religion? I fully understand that the vast majority of followers of this religion have no desire whatsoever to strap bombs to themselves. But they also have no huge desire to be overly critical to those who do. And when almost a third of the followers of this religion residing in England wish to live under sharia law (which permits the slaughtering of women should they bring upon themselves the shame of being raped) rather than British law, you've really got to worry. Over the centuries, Christianity has been a force for progress. True, during the middle ages, the Catholic church repressed the society that it presided over. But it learned from mistakes and now produces Mother Theresas, not Osama bin Ladens. In contrast, any country that has fallen under the rule of an Islamic society has regressed. Whereas Islamic countries once were incredibly liberal, in contrast to their European counterparts, now there is not a single country under Islamic rule that anyone would willingly resettle in. Other than terrorists, there aren't a lot of people beating down the doors at Iranian embassies to become citizens of that country.
I applaud those believers in Muhammed who lead peaceful lives and who are trying to raise their children and earn a living. But I am increasingly having to ask myself whether they truly are the rule, or the exception.

Summer Reading List

For this summer, I would recommend the following:
Right now, I am rediscovering the classics . . . once again. Currently, I am enjoying reading David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens. It is the third of his works that I have picked up, and am thoroughly enjoying it. So far, I would put A Tale of Two Cities first, followed by Copperfield, and lastly Great Expectations. This is all I have read thus far, but am planning on reading more.

Recently I finished the biography of Adolf Hitler by John Toland, and would recommed it to anybody who enjoys history. Additionally, I have also recently finished The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchmann, about the beginnings of World War I. That, combined with a very good comprehensive study of the Great War in one volume, The First World War by S. L. A. Marshall, is also a good selection for history buffs.

My third selection is one that I have not yet read, but already have pre-ordered. This is the final of the Harry Potter series. Being a relatively late-comer to this series, I have nonetheless enjoyed them, and am on the edge of my seat to find out how J. K. Rowling will resolve this adventure. Additionally, I also plan on seeing the Order of the Phoenix next week on the IMAX screen.

The Tolkien lover in me enjoyed The Children of Hurin, the latest of the writings of the late J. R. R. Tolkien to be made available by his family. While anybody who has read the Silmarillion will not find a whole lot new here, it was still fun to have this interesting tale set off on its own with more detail than we were treated to in the Silmarillion.

Finally, if you have a taste for science fiction, I also plan on picking up the latest in the Dune empire by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson. While not as cerebral, and perhaps catering a bit more towards entertainment than intellect, these additions have been entertaining and fast moving readings. Whether they are true to the original intent of Frank Herbert I will leave for others to debate. But if you want a good story, I have not been disappointed by these two authors.

Morons in Power

"The President . . . shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

In their recent outrage over the actions of President Bush, Democrats prove once again how ignorant they are of the Constitution. Rep. John Conyers has now decided, with Congressional approval ratings below 20%, to hold hearings on the President using his absolute power to pardon. In an amazing feat, Democrats have managed to hold hearings on a subject even more idiotic that their hearings into whether or not political appointees in the Justice Department were removed from office for political reasons. That is about as stupid as holding hearings to determine whether a democratically elected official was elected democratically (actually, that is what they continue to contest since the 2000 election).
Of all people to speak out on this, President Clinton, friend to drug smugglers/dealers and non-repentant fugitive financiers the world over, had the gall to criticize Bush on his commuting the sentence of Libby. Note that he didn't actually pardon Libby. Libby will still have to pay $250,000, will likely lose his license to practice law, and will have a felony conviction on his record. In the history of Washington criminal occurrences, Libby's actions, based on his current punishment, rank right up there with a President of the United States lying under oath, and rank higher than a former national security advisor stealing classified documents by stuffing them down his pants, then destroying those documents. The fact that Clinton could talk on this subject with a straight face was truly amazing. We haven't seen this kind of chutzpah from a Democrat since Jimmy Carter ranked Bush's administration as the worst in history.
Lets put this in context once again, shall we? From the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew that the leak of the information of Valerie Plame working for the CIA came from Richard Armitage who was one of Colin Powell's deputies, and was no fan of the President of the V.P. Despite this, Fitzgerald focused on Cheney and Karl Rove, even though he knew they were not the leaks. In the course of his questioning of Libby, Libby slipped up in his testimony. So Fitzgerald went after him for perjury and obstruction of justice, despite the fact that neither Libby, nor Rove, nor Cheney were the ones to leak the information, and the leaking of the information has turned out to not even be a crime in the first place. So they got Libby for lying about a non-crime. And for this they threw more than the book at him. At trial, Fitzgerald emphasized that there was no connection between Libby and the leaked information, so that he would not have to provide Libby's defense team with relevant information for them to mount a successful defense. However, during the sentencing portion, Fitzgerald reversed himself and argued that the crime was so heinous because it had everything to do with the leak, just so he could get a harsher sentence. Once again, for lying about a non-crime. If the real issue was prosecuting the person who leaked the information, why have no charges been filed against Armitage?
But in Democrats' minds, this represents a more egregious violation of the law than Sandy Berger stealing classified documents from the national archives, in his pants, and then destroying them, so that his former boss would not look bad in the investigation of 9/11. The fact that Berger will not spend a day in jail for this offense doesn't bother Dems in the least. You see, the law only applies to Republicans.