I'll admit it, my prospects look bleak. I know that I am being labeled as one of those angry conservatives who is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. But I still won't vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I certainly won't vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket. I am not counting Romney out yet, but it is going to take a miracle right now for him to beat McCain. Especially if Huckabee stays in it and we continue to have more West Virginia scenarios play out where Huckabee runs block for McCain.
Maybe McCain can win the general election. However, I am far from convinced of that. In race after race last night, the individual totals in each state for either Obama or Clinton, regardless of who won the state, in many cases totaled more than the combined vote counts for all of the Republican candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain is cinching up the nomination to be a less likable Bob Dole.
Maybe a McCain presidency would be more conservative than I think. Let's hope so. But I won't bet on it. If Republicans do poorly in this election in the Senate and the House, and the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority, does anybody really believe that McCain would have any objection to signing his immigration bill, unchanged, if sent to his desk? Or would a Republican minority stand up to him on the issue? Sure, they stood up to Bush when he was riding low in the polls, but a newly elected president? Or what about taxes? And we know he will sign legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. Let's face it, a McCain presidency is just as much of a crap shoot as a Clinton presidency. McCain takes it as a point of pride that he has stood in opposition to conservative principles. Stop citing to me his conservative rating from 20 years ago. Maybe he was more conservative then. He isn't now. They have to bring Bob Dole out of retirement to tell us that back when he was in the Senate (1992), McCain was a good conservative?
I know, I know, Reagan signed the last terrible immigration bill, so McCain is just the same as Reagan. Bull crap! Maybe Reagan did sign that bill, but if he were here now, in the presidency, he would look at what a failure that one was, and realize that signing a bill that goes even further would be sheer lunacy. Reagan also would not have opposed the Bush tax cuts because they, as McCain described, would only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. McCain is not the logical heir of Reagan. I agree that Romney isn't either, but an ascending conservative, to me, is preferable to a descending conservative who has a freakish desire to be loved by the mainstream media, and loves poking a stick in the eyes of conservatives to get that media adoration.
Sorry, if you are telling me my choices are Hillary and McCain, I may have to sit this one out.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I will not vote for McCain (or Huckabee)!
There it is. I have said it. I would rather see a Democrat in the White House (not with my vote, though) than vote for either of these two. Here is why:
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.
And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.
Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."
Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.
And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.
Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."
Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Musings on a Wednesday afternoon
"Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we've done. We've done a lot of things." Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Roll Call, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!
So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!
Monday, December 10, 2007
I'm back - Musings for Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have (emphasis added). This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Sue Their Pants Off
I am not one to normally advocate suing someone or something. I know that in certain circumstances, it is necessary, but people like John Edwards, I think, have perverted this part of our justice system. However, in light of the recent events in Newark, with the execution of 3 college students and critical injuring of a 4th allegedly by at least 2 illegal immigrants, one of which had been arrested multiple times, once on charges of sexually assaulting a child, I think it calls for new action.
Newark, along with other cities, including, I'm sad to say, my own Columbus, Ohio, is a sanctuary city. This means that, either officially or unofficially, city officials, including law enforcement officials, are instructed to not inform ICE of the status of illegals. Even if an illegal immigrant is arrested, they are not to inform ICE that they have an illegal alien in custody. This is in violation of federal immigration laws. In the case of the situation of Newark, the ringleader in these executions had been arrested many times, and it was known that he was in the country illegally. Not only that, but he was also linked to gang activities. Rather than reporting him to ICE so that, following serving any sentences he might incur for illegal activities in this country, he could be deported, he was released on bail each time. As a result, a man that should have never been released from custody, and should have been deported a long time ago, orchestrated the shooting of 4 college students, leaving 3 of them dead. Congressman Tom Tancredo believes that the city of Newark shares culpability in this crime. I tend to agree. If we can sue gun companies for gun related violence, why can't the city of Newark be sued for releasing a repeat offender illegal alien back onto the streets in violation of federal law? If they had abided by federal law, this man would not have been able to commit this crime. I think that this threat should hang over the heads of all such sanctuary cities. Certainly we can't hold them responsible for any and all criminal acts committed by illegals, but in instances such as this one, where they had ample opportunity to remove this person from the public in accordance with federal law, and they chose not to, then they should definitely have to bear responsibility for their inaction.
In a rarely seen bright spot in the area of immigration enforcement, Elvira Arellano has been deported back to Mexico. You will remember her as the illegal who entered the country not once, but twice. First in 1997, when she was apprehended and deported. Then in 1999, when she gave birth to a son. She was picked up in a post-9/11 security sweep and found to have a fake Social Security number. Rather than report for an immigration hearing, she sought sanctuary in a Methodist church in Chicago for the last year. This week she decided to leave the confines of the church to head to LA for a rally, and immigration officials carried out their legally mandated job by arresting her and promptly escorting her to the border. Liberals will tell you this is heartless, and she should be allowed to stay here to raise her son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. She is perfectly able to take her son back to Mexico with her. She can then begin the process of trying to enter the country legally. I am still unclear why it is that liberals and pro-illegal immigration hacks feel that the U.S. needs to be the accommodating one, when she is the one who broke the law.
Finally, approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are now tied for the lowest ever since such ratings have been tracked beginning back in the early '70s. They are now at 18%. Interestingly, the other time in history that approval ratings were this low was the last time Democrats were in control of Congress back in 1992, with a series of scandals rocking their party that would result in sweeping Republicans into power 2 years later. The next lowest approval rating occurred in 1979 with approval at 19%. I'll let you guess who was in power then, as well. And these low numbers are not simply being weighed down by a lot of Republicans giving Democrats a thumbs down. When you break the numbers down by party affiliation, you find that Republicans give Congress a 17% approval, while Democrats give Congress only a 21% approval. Not much of a difference there. Incidentally, I'll let you guess when the highest approval ratings for Congress were (excluding the huge spike that occurred in September 2001). The approval ratings began a steady climb beginning around 1994 (wasn't there a significant mid-term election that year?) and climbed to around 50%, staying level there until about 2003. Just some food for thought.
Newark, along with other cities, including, I'm sad to say, my own Columbus, Ohio, is a sanctuary city. This means that, either officially or unofficially, city officials, including law enforcement officials, are instructed to not inform ICE of the status of illegals. Even if an illegal immigrant is arrested, they are not to inform ICE that they have an illegal alien in custody. This is in violation of federal immigration laws. In the case of the situation of Newark, the ringleader in these executions had been arrested many times, and it was known that he was in the country illegally. Not only that, but he was also linked to gang activities. Rather than reporting him to ICE so that, following serving any sentences he might incur for illegal activities in this country, he could be deported, he was released on bail each time. As a result, a man that should have never been released from custody, and should have been deported a long time ago, orchestrated the shooting of 4 college students, leaving 3 of them dead. Congressman Tom Tancredo believes that the city of Newark shares culpability in this crime. I tend to agree. If we can sue gun companies for gun related violence, why can't the city of Newark be sued for releasing a repeat offender illegal alien back onto the streets in violation of federal law? If they had abided by federal law, this man would not have been able to commit this crime. I think that this threat should hang over the heads of all such sanctuary cities. Certainly we can't hold them responsible for any and all criminal acts committed by illegals, but in instances such as this one, where they had ample opportunity to remove this person from the public in accordance with federal law, and they chose not to, then they should definitely have to bear responsibility for their inaction.
In a rarely seen bright spot in the area of immigration enforcement, Elvira Arellano has been deported back to Mexico. You will remember her as the illegal who entered the country not once, but twice. First in 1997, when she was apprehended and deported. Then in 1999, when she gave birth to a son. She was picked up in a post-9/11 security sweep and found to have a fake Social Security number. Rather than report for an immigration hearing, she sought sanctuary in a Methodist church in Chicago for the last year. This week she decided to leave the confines of the church to head to LA for a rally, and immigration officials carried out their legally mandated job by arresting her and promptly escorting her to the border. Liberals will tell you this is heartless, and she should be allowed to stay here to raise her son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. She is perfectly able to take her son back to Mexico with her. She can then begin the process of trying to enter the country legally. I am still unclear why it is that liberals and pro-illegal immigration hacks feel that the U.S. needs to be the accommodating one, when she is the one who broke the law.
Finally, approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are now tied for the lowest ever since such ratings have been tracked beginning back in the early '70s. They are now at 18%. Interestingly, the other time in history that approval ratings were this low was the last time Democrats were in control of Congress back in 1992, with a series of scandals rocking their party that would result in sweeping Republicans into power 2 years later. The next lowest approval rating occurred in 1979 with approval at 19%. I'll let you guess who was in power then, as well. And these low numbers are not simply being weighed down by a lot of Republicans giving Democrats a thumbs down. When you break the numbers down by party affiliation, you find that Republicans give Congress a 17% approval, while Democrats give Congress only a 21% approval. Not much of a difference there. Incidentally, I'll let you guess when the highest approval ratings for Congress were (excluding the huge spike that occurred in September 2001). The approval ratings began a steady climb beginning around 1994 (wasn't there a significant mid-term election that year?) and climbed to around 50%, staying level there until about 2003. Just some food for thought.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Your Tax Money Hard at Work . . . Buying New Democrat Voters
The recent crash in the housing sector known as subprime lending has been all in the news lately. People who, for whatever reason, had sub-par credit ratings that prohibited them from obtaining advantageous mortgages to buy a home sought out much more easily acquired variable rate loans. Why they did this, I don't know. There are certain attractions to variable rate loans. Initially, they often promise an interest rate much lower than you would normally obtain from a fixed-rate loan. The problem is, variable means exactly what it sounds like. That rate can change. And it is almost certainly not going to vary in your favor. So now we have people who unwisely signed their names on the dotted lines to finance purchases that they could not normally afford, and figured tomorrow would never come.
As we all should know, though, from Little Orphan Annie, tomorrow is only a day away. Now that rates have jumped up for these people, many can no longer afford their houses, and so there has been a jump in foreclosures in this sector. What to do? Enter Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat presidential hopefuls. Bit off more than you can chew? Eyes bigger than your stomach? No problem. We'll bail you out. Hillary Clinton's big idea was to set aside $1 billion of government funds (you know, that money that just mysteriously appears in the federal budget) to assist these people (i.e. bail them out).
Now I understand that this is a horrible situation to be put in. What could be worse than being forced to leave your home. But come on, people. If I go out tomorrow and buy myself a Ferrari, and discover that, in a few months time, I can no longer afford the payments, can I request assistance from Uncle Sam? I realize a house is not a luxury vehicle, but the principle is the same. When you go to make such an important purchase, there are a few things you need to consider. Number one, can I actually afford this purchase? Will my income cover my monthly payment, and allow me to purchase everything else I need? Will I just barely have enough money? A house is not something that you want to be scraping together every last penny for. Also, can I get a decent mortgage, or will I have to choose a more risky loan? Even if you have a fixed rate loan, housing costs invariably go up for most people. While my own loan is fixed rate, other things, such as property taxes, go up fairly regularly.
Now just because somebody else did not go to the trouble that I did in researching a purchase as important and expensive as a house, why should I be penalized? Who do you think has to come up with that $1 billion that Hillary wants to set aside for these people? My heart goes out to them, I hope they come through it okay, but that does not give them the right to reach into my wallet to bail them out of their poor decisions.
Here is my advice to them. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. If you are going to get a variable rate loan, and you are not expecting a significant increase in your income in the near future so that you can refinance for a fixed rate before your rates change, don't do it. Maybe you have to rent for a bit longer. But isn't that preferable to foreclosure, which will only further damage your credit rating? Hillary likes to shift virtually all of the blame for this on the lenders, and to be sure, there are some unscrupulous people out there that took advantage of a lot of people to make a buck. But what is going to shut down this type of predatory lending faster? Further regulations, or letting people take responsibility for their poor decisions and learn from their mistakes. What is the incentive to not go out and get one of these ill-advised mortgages if there is the virtual guarantee that, should you be unable to make the payment, the government would bail you out?
As for those who like to point out how such a view might be unbecoming of a Christian, I think we understand the teachings of Christ differently. Christ never taught dependency on anything other than his grace. Sure, Christ helped the needy, but he did not provide their every need. I find it interesting that, when presented with a man that was lame, who had to be lowered into a building where Christ was teaching, that, rather than personally carrying the man around for the rest of his life, Christ healed him, then told him to pick up his bed and walk. Christ gave the man the ability to do for himself. When the fishermen that were to be his future disciples had an unprofitable day of fishing, Christ did not send them to petition their neighbors and the government for subsidies to help them through their difficult times, nor did he chastise their neighbors into supporting them in their misfortune. Rather, he told them to go out and casts their nets on the other side. He helped, but he still required them to make their own effort. Christ did teach compassion, which we should all exercise, and to give what we can to those less fortunate. But he did not teach those less fortunate to be dependent on others. He also taught that there are consequences for our actions that we must accept.
As we all should know, though, from Little Orphan Annie, tomorrow is only a day away. Now that rates have jumped up for these people, many can no longer afford their houses, and so there has been a jump in foreclosures in this sector. What to do? Enter Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat presidential hopefuls. Bit off more than you can chew? Eyes bigger than your stomach? No problem. We'll bail you out. Hillary Clinton's big idea was to set aside $1 billion of government funds (you know, that money that just mysteriously appears in the federal budget) to assist these people (i.e. bail them out).
Now I understand that this is a horrible situation to be put in. What could be worse than being forced to leave your home. But come on, people. If I go out tomorrow and buy myself a Ferrari, and discover that, in a few months time, I can no longer afford the payments, can I request assistance from Uncle Sam? I realize a house is not a luxury vehicle, but the principle is the same. When you go to make such an important purchase, there are a few things you need to consider. Number one, can I actually afford this purchase? Will my income cover my monthly payment, and allow me to purchase everything else I need? Will I just barely have enough money? A house is not something that you want to be scraping together every last penny for. Also, can I get a decent mortgage, or will I have to choose a more risky loan? Even if you have a fixed rate loan, housing costs invariably go up for most people. While my own loan is fixed rate, other things, such as property taxes, go up fairly regularly.
Now just because somebody else did not go to the trouble that I did in researching a purchase as important and expensive as a house, why should I be penalized? Who do you think has to come up with that $1 billion that Hillary wants to set aside for these people? My heart goes out to them, I hope they come through it okay, but that does not give them the right to reach into my wallet to bail them out of their poor decisions.
Here is my advice to them. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. If you are going to get a variable rate loan, and you are not expecting a significant increase in your income in the near future so that you can refinance for a fixed rate before your rates change, don't do it. Maybe you have to rent for a bit longer. But isn't that preferable to foreclosure, which will only further damage your credit rating? Hillary likes to shift virtually all of the blame for this on the lenders, and to be sure, there are some unscrupulous people out there that took advantage of a lot of people to make a buck. But what is going to shut down this type of predatory lending faster? Further regulations, or letting people take responsibility for their poor decisions and learn from their mistakes. What is the incentive to not go out and get one of these ill-advised mortgages if there is the virtual guarantee that, should you be unable to make the payment, the government would bail you out?
As for those who like to point out how such a view might be unbecoming of a Christian, I think we understand the teachings of Christ differently. Christ never taught dependency on anything other than his grace. Sure, Christ helped the needy, but he did not provide their every need. I find it interesting that, when presented with a man that was lame, who had to be lowered into a building where Christ was teaching, that, rather than personally carrying the man around for the rest of his life, Christ healed him, then told him to pick up his bed and walk. Christ gave the man the ability to do for himself. When the fishermen that were to be his future disciples had an unprofitable day of fishing, Christ did not send them to petition their neighbors and the government for subsidies to help them through their difficult times, nor did he chastise their neighbors into supporting them in their misfortune. Rather, he told them to go out and casts their nets on the other side. He helped, but he still required them to make their own effort. Christ did teach compassion, which we should all exercise, and to give what we can to those less fortunate. But he did not teach those less fortunate to be dependent on others. He also taught that there are consequences for our actions that we must accept.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Scientists find . . . asphalt is hotter than dirt!
As one of those most likely to be smeared as a "global warming denier," I think it might be useful to make a few points today regarding the "flawless" data that supports the idea of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
After a Canadian found a flaw in the calculations used to determine temperature anomalies in the United States from the global average, NASA was forced to correct their data. To give you some context, this is the very data that Al Gore cited in his now mythical "An Inconvenient Truth" when telling us all that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history. It turns out that there was a flaw in the software that generated this data as a result of the Y2K bug. With the newly revised data, it turns out that 1998 is now only the second hottest. The hottest day on record in the U.S. was 1934, you know, back when there was a chicken in every pot and an SUV in every driveway. Oh wait, that's right, there wasn't. In fact, of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were 1939 or before.
One industrious individual in Chico, California, got suspicious after seeing what seemed to be an unexplained drastic jump in temperatures from one of the temperature sensors around the country that is used to collect temperatures to track the earth's "fever," as Al Gore calls it. He found that the jump in the sensor's readings, at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, corresponded almost exactly with when 2 air conditioning units were moved off of a nearby building and set up on the ground in close proximity to the sensor. He and some assistants have gone around the country and surveyed these critical measuring instruments, and found that many are not properly positioned, but are in fact placed near asphalt, buildings, and other things, like air conditioning units, that will result in higher than accurate readings.
My third point relates to a paper that I read in the journal Science, one of the top peer-reviewed Science journals in the world. It was regarding a new method for predicting climate change. Apparently, previous models neglect to include certain aspects of the climate that are difficult to model. Do you understand the full impact of that statement? Scientists make predictions on the climate without taking into account all the various factors. Nor do they even fully understand all the factors that influence climate change. This particular study developed a new model that took into account things like El Nino. To test this model, they did retrospective predictions, and compared them to what was actually recorded. The new model worked better than other models, and was even able to predict some cooling that actually did occur in the last 20 years. Importantly, the other models were never able to accurately predict cooling. They could only predict warming, even when tested retrospectively. A model is only as good as the scientist that generates it, reflecting his/her understanding of how various factors impact the climate. And it appears that many models are only good for predicting warming. This new model actually predicted some cooling within the next five year period, with warming thereafter. And you wonder why some people are skeptical?
Finally, a new Zogby poll shows Bush's approval rating down 2 points to 32%. Congress is currently at 15%. Importantly, Democrats give their Democrat-controlled Congress a whopping 80% disapproval rating. Nancy Pelosi isn't doing too good of a job for the American people, or for the children. With all the carping about how irresponsible it is for the Iraqi parliament to be on summer recess, what about our Congress? If they really feel that it is a moral imperative to bring our troops home now, how reprehensible is it for them to be off on vacation when they should be hard at work trying to bring our troops home?
After a Canadian found a flaw in the calculations used to determine temperature anomalies in the United States from the global average, NASA was forced to correct their data. To give you some context, this is the very data that Al Gore cited in his now mythical "An Inconvenient Truth" when telling us all that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history. It turns out that there was a flaw in the software that generated this data as a result of the Y2K bug. With the newly revised data, it turns out that 1998 is now only the second hottest. The hottest day on record in the U.S. was 1934, you know, back when there was a chicken in every pot and an SUV in every driveway. Oh wait, that's right, there wasn't. In fact, of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were 1939 or before.
One industrious individual in Chico, California, got suspicious after seeing what seemed to be an unexplained drastic jump in temperatures from one of the temperature sensors around the country that is used to collect temperatures to track the earth's "fever," as Al Gore calls it. He found that the jump in the sensor's readings, at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, corresponded almost exactly with when 2 air conditioning units were moved off of a nearby building and set up on the ground in close proximity to the sensor. He and some assistants have gone around the country and surveyed these critical measuring instruments, and found that many are not properly positioned, but are in fact placed near asphalt, buildings, and other things, like air conditioning units, that will result in higher than accurate readings.
My third point relates to a paper that I read in the journal Science, one of the top peer-reviewed Science journals in the world. It was regarding a new method for predicting climate change. Apparently, previous models neglect to include certain aspects of the climate that are difficult to model. Do you understand the full impact of that statement? Scientists make predictions on the climate without taking into account all the various factors. Nor do they even fully understand all the factors that influence climate change. This particular study developed a new model that took into account things like El Nino. To test this model, they did retrospective predictions, and compared them to what was actually recorded. The new model worked better than other models, and was even able to predict some cooling that actually did occur in the last 20 years. Importantly, the other models were never able to accurately predict cooling. They could only predict warming, even when tested retrospectively. A model is only as good as the scientist that generates it, reflecting his/her understanding of how various factors impact the climate. And it appears that many models are only good for predicting warming. This new model actually predicted some cooling within the next five year period, with warming thereafter. And you wonder why some people are skeptical?
Finally, a new Zogby poll shows Bush's approval rating down 2 points to 32%. Congress is currently at 15%. Importantly, Democrats give their Democrat-controlled Congress a whopping 80% disapproval rating. Nancy Pelosi isn't doing too good of a job for the American people, or for the children. With all the carping about how irresponsible it is for the Iraqi parliament to be on summer recess, what about our Congress? If they really feel that it is a moral imperative to bring our troops home now, how reprehensible is it for them to be off on vacation when they should be hard at work trying to bring our troops home?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
