The Inflamitory

A Different Perspective

2008-02-13T15:30:00.002-10:00

What was said in the boiling pot? What were the key phrases? Were they plans of specificity, that the mind can critique? Or do they represent the vision, hope, motivation for a bright future? Let us examine two texts, where I have selected the hook phrasing:

"But we are all filled with unbounded confidence for we believe in our people and their imperishable virtues. Every class and every individual must help us to found the new Reich."

"The National Government intends to solve the problem of the reorganization of trade and commerce with two four-year plans:"

"The German farmer must be rescued in order that the nation may be supplied with the necessities of life...."

"A concerted and all-embracing attack must be made on unemployment in order that the German working class may be saved from ruin...."

"Within four years the German peasant must be rescued from the quagmire into which he has fallen."

"Within four years unemployment must be finally overcome. At the same time the conditions necessary for a revival in trade and commerce are provided."

"The securing of the necessities of life will include the performance of social duties to the sick and aged."

"Now, people of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgment upon us."

That from the "BERLIN: PROCLAMATION TO THE GERMAN NATION", Feb 1, 1933. All quotes come from the Hitler Historical Museum, a fine apolitical online reference for such material. The next group of quotes this from "BERLIN, CONGRESS OF THE GERMAN WORK FRONT", May 10, 1933:

"Not with any idea of helping the worker -what is the worker of any country to these apostles of internationalism? Nothing at all! They never see him! They themselves are no workers: they are alien litterateurs, an alien gang! . . ."

"There might have been something which could perhaps have opposed these millions and that something would have been the State, had it not been that this State had sunk so low that it had become the plaything of groups of interested parties."

"Bismarck once declared that liberalism was the pacemaker for social democracy. And I do not need in this place to say that social democracy is the pacemaker for communism. But communism is the pacemaker for death - the death of a people - downfall."

"It is the spirit from which efforts spring that helps to decide the issue. There must be no conquerors and no conquered; our people must be the only conqueror - conqueror over classes and castes, and conqueror over the interests of these single groups in our people!"

"I am an independent man, and I have set before myself no other goal than to serve, to the best of my power and ability, the German people, and above all to serve the millions who, thanks to their simple trust and ignorance and thanks to the baseness of their former leaders, have perhaps suffered more than any other class."

"I have always professed that there is nothing finer than to be the advocate of those who cannot easily defend themselves."

"Because I know this people better than any other, and at the same time know the rest of the people, I am not only ready in this case to undertake the role of an honest broker but I am glad that destiny can cast me for the part. I shall never in my life have any greater reason for pride than when at the end of my days I can say: I have won the German workingman for the German Reich."

My comments here are a bit ethereal. The flavor of these words is perhaps changed in translation, salted with English invective. But it is very evident how he has weaved his personal story into the "common thread", the collective experience of the audience, and used that to direct the perspective. It is brilliant, even without knowing the context of each speech, which I purposely left little of.

The scary thing is the systematic picture of the state as the answer. It is the wresting of control from the population, through gentle persuasion. It is the massaging of class envy, the isolation of the opposition, the direct coercion through emotion that strikes to the core of our consciousness. How is this different than the political populism of today? The techniques are the same, the words are similar. The socialist goals are identical, where is the difference?

I would say it is skill and intent. Hitler is gifted with the ability to elevate his story beyond 'rock star' status to verging on the messianic. And his intent does expose itself beyond the simple acquisition of political power. But, given this, the techniques are the same, and I would claim the results of these techniques will always lead to failure, weather world changing, or relatively benign.

The people are deceived and the bright future is not one of individual excellence. Without focusing on the fulfillment of the individual through personal betterment and effort, the approach is doomed to thrash against those who refuse to be suppressed. It is the inevitable result of socialism. The population may be eased into comfortable domination by the central government for a short time, but that is against the human spirit. By these quotes, and knowing the possible result of the government they represent, we should educate ourselves to those who would utilize the same methods.

A Litany of Change

2008-02-13T09:39:00.001-10:00

I had to see for myself, "Does an Obama speech really consist of nothing?" So I grabbed one and chewed it up. This is for New Orleans, and is amazingly, full of absolutely nothing! Wow, so I went after the obvious hook lines, just to see them all together. Here you go:

"When I am President, I will start by restoring that most basic trust - that your government will do what it takes to keep you safe.

When I am President, the days of dysfunction and cronyism in Washington will be over.

All of this will cost money.

I promise you that when I'm in the White House I will commit myself every day to keeping up Washington's end of this trust.

That is what is possible if we can trust each other; and if we have the imagination to see the unseen, and the determination to work for it."

Well there you have it. Oh sure there was lots of local flavor in between, with the inevitable rhetoric and empty promises. Even a specific new 4k tax credit for college students. But for the most part, the above covers Obama's complete platform.

First and foremost, your government is there to keep you safe. Then the glorious promise of a functioning D.C., from the most liberal senator currently serving. Something is missing in that one. Next, it will cost money, so "we need more of yours..." Then, he promises to spend that money, which I can believe. Can we see it? Oh yeah, we already have it. Change? What change?

A Discussion that Ends with "Liberal Optimism"

2008-02-08T13:51:00.000-10:00

Ok, you know that is snarky sarcasm, and the folowing discussion is equally laced with invective. Don't be offended, it's a rough world. The key here is painting a picture of the political landscape. And what a result at the end... I begin things with this provocation:

Well, I was surfing around a bit, and I had completely forgoten Johny Mac's conservative fiscal roots. Ala Keating Five. It is a disgrace that, what I call conservative, and what the Party assumes is conservative, are two completely different things. John does one thing for the world, he assures a Obama victory in Nov. Baring some hideous screw up or evil Clinton plot against him. However, there was not much choice this year, same as the last .... twenty years. Oh, I voted against that idiot Kerry. But Bush was never my choice for leader, just better than your villiage buffoons. This time around, it is actually quite sad. Hunter is conservative, but no traction. Then give me Fred, but he had no desire or advisers. Rudy was acceptable simply on his executive record and talent, not aligned by the issues. And that's about all she wrote. Oh, I could have pulled the lever for Mitt, but he DOES NOT inspire confidence. And the Huckster, affable as he is, has revealed a severe lack of world comprehension.

Obama can win easily. But he has little skill, and even less experience. Doubtful he can grow up that fast. Going to be a rocky road..... At least the Clintons trust no one.... But they are evil. Possibly the best option now is to see Hillary get the nod. One bright spot, look for another '94 like conservative revolution in 2010. That's about all there is. You all on the left have even less hope. ZERO leadership, coupled with being in power, leads to disaster. You get the same lip service, and the same lobbyists who get what they want done, which has nothing to do with the concerns of the people. Unless it pertains to handouts for more votes, like "stimulus package", "citizenship", and "health care".

What will be the response I wonder?

Odd ain't it. No real conservatives and no real liberals. Wonder what that says about the state of politics in the USA? Well, actually, I like Obama. Great potential there if he isn't eaten up by the corrupt corporations and the criminal DOD bunch. Note how the tune from DOD is changing; less on 'the terrorists are coming' and more going back to the stock enemy, 'the Russians are coming'. Seems we just must have a boogieman or the warmongers won't get their inflated budgets.

Now that was down right placid. No excitement at all. So I tried to light up something a bit more direct:

Here is my question to you sages of the fever swamp. What is the read on Obama as regarding how he will handle lobbyists and corporate influence? He has steadfastly rejected K-Street money, but has gotten back door help in some areas. And the onslaught of 527 groups won't start for another month or so. How does he fair in that realm? It's an unknown, at least to me. With Hill and John, we will get the same old stuff, its completely damning, but so much retread that voters don't seem to care much. But Obama is a hidden target. I can not get any sense. When Hill and Bill went nasty on him, he came off kinda goofy, as if not sure of his own skin. But just the fact that he stayed ethereally positive made the clowns look old and bitter. What do you think?

So you would expect more insight, more politics, something fun. No, this is a strange day indeed. Here we have something with the definite flavor of conspiracy. End of the world nutterdom. Quite amazing that anyone could end up with this world view, but apparently this has become popular. See what you think:

Well. I think we are headed into an economic down turn that could really get nasty. I think we're heading into another rise in fighting and deaths in Iraq. I think we're going to see our purchased allies in Afghanistan drop out and the Taliban gain ground. I think that oil prices will continue to rise. I think that we will see a credit crunch, and soon. I think unemployment will begin to increase rather soon. I think we'll see Russia flex her muscles, and we can't do a damn thing about it. So, a year from now, we're going to see a Democratic President, a Democratic House, a 61+ Democratic Senate and have a lot of work to do to turn things around. As you saw in my list of a day or two ago, a lot of things have to be changed or we are going to lose our Republic and slip into 2ed nation if not 3 nation status.....broke, friendless, powerless, and on the rapid downhill slope. But, my best guess is that very little on my list will actually be accomplished, few even attempted, because the average American has yet to realize and feel what has happened; and by the time they do the disease will prove fatal. Some other people, somewhere else, some time in the future, will have to fight the good fight for freedom, independence, democracy and a republican form of government. We have become dull witted, sleepy, slow, unable to see the rising quagmire of indolence, debt, greed, ignorance and stupidity WE have built and become both the tool and the victim of. We will be remembered as are the Greek City States and the Roman Republic, elegant failures. Systems are, by their nature as systems, self-limiting if they do not adapt and change. a sort of 'social evolution' that is not genetic or biologic, but is intellectual, mental, political and economic. That is, based on man's ability to 'think'. Instead, we have allowed the evils of unrestrained capitalism, militarism, and religion to blind us to rational and progressive thought and ideas. Instead of looking forward our solutions are all looking backward, wanting to go back to a world that never was and can never be. That way lies a dead end. OK, so be it. Let the great Western civilization that arose from the 15th century decline and pass away. Some other people will adapt, change, and emerge as a new and dynamic civilization. Arnold Toynbee talked about civilizations in terms of cycles, tempered by 'crisis and response'. The West, particularly the US, is failing to respond in an adaptive manner to solve the 'crisis'. The outcome, as Oswald Spengler said, is The Decline of the West. We had a good run.

Well. This is the end result of the social humanist mentality. You can come to no other conclusion. Despair, failure, and destruction. The inevitable friend of the Godless. Don't you feel like a long hot shower after slipping into that swamp? A mental shower at least. Go now, and cleanse yourself.

The New Base: Pseudocons

2008-02-06T10:43:00.000-10:00

There was a phenomena beginning in the seventies of democrats who had fiscal conservative (or perhaps libertarian) views voting for Republican candidates. Many were Democrats simply by culture and blood, not by brain power. Their parents held FDR in such high regard that party became part of life, not cognition. This was instilled from the womb, a immutable part of the family, "We're all Democrats..." But things changed, and by Reagan's second term, "Reagan Democrats" were a very large voting block. Reagan reached across the political divide and spread conservative views. His compromises forced liberals to sacrifice socialist ideals.

Jumping forward, there was a revolution in the Congress in '94, where conservative leadership convincingly moved into power. How did they do it? Did they compromise and become more moderate? No, they defined precisely what they stood for, and reached across the political divide to embrace likeminded voters. Conservative political philosophy is able to win politically, and coupled with dynamic personality and leadership (ala Reagan) is guaranteed to succeed.

But in the last ten years, a new force has swelled in the Republican womb. A purely political fetus, a genetic aberration with a seriously ugly head. Born from compromise and the idea that to win, you need the 'moderate' vote, this new movement, the Pseudocons, is sweeping the Republican party. What defines this new core? Populism is its exterior visage, with a murky, shifting interior of muddy values. The values were once clean, clear principals of conservatism. But they have been sullied through expedient arrangements design to "get things done".

By accomplishing objectives the insatiable populist beast is held at bay. But the cost has permanently severed the umbilical cord of this premature movement. Is it old enough to survive? Who can predict the future. Irregardless, for the health and welfare of the mother, it needs to be born now. Will it be a natural birth? Or does it need to be cut out... It appears that major conservative voices are calling for a C-section.

Yes, this 2008 Presidential primary is the context. McCain appears to be gathering support in the Republican primary. He is the de-facto leader of the Pseudocons, the model definition of the philosophy. There is no need to argue about specifics. It's the principal that fits even better than the bad legislation. What principal? That of reaching across the political divide to "work together" and "compromise" on things that are inherently not conservative in the first place.

Notice the difference? Successful conservative movements find ways to look to the future, see positive ways to get others to agree with conservative principals and go in that direction. Pseudocons take conservatism for granted, and move their own philosophy down the moderate road, hoping that the road is wide enough and well paved that the traditional conservative base will travel it by default. But we aren't going up hill. We are not reaching for a higher place. We are descending into the cesspool of populist socialism. There are no true political moderates, just a growing number of popular socialists.

What does this mean for those who are conservative? Should we compromise our principals and choose the "lesser of two evils" by supporting McCain if he is the Republican nominee? I would argue that it is fundamentally wrong in this case. Principal above party must come at some point. Don't sully your own hand, cleaning off the stain might be harder than you think. I realize there are many who will willingly support McCain from conservative ranks. But to those I would ask only one thing, will you re-evaluate you own conservative values? With McCain, you are joining a new movement, you are a Pseudocon voter. Fight against the thought all you want, rant and rail about all the reasons why "we" must win, but realize you have contributed to a illegitimate offspring. A mutant that is unlikely to survive.

cross posted at Red State

The Final Battle in Iraq?

2008-01-25T09:53:00.000-10:00

I have been scouring the news lately for Iraq headlines. Thankless task now that the leftist nutter media has apparently conceded their propaganda defeat. Oh, there are the moonbats hard at work rekindling Bush Lied&trade to satisfy their seven years of emptiness, but the semi-sentient press has fallen silent. Check that, silent on Iraq. They have the glories of a year long primary election to salivate over, the economy to trash, vapid politicians to prop up, and other nefarious deeds. So it was quite a wonder to read this piece from Reuters:

Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda - PM

I am not familiar with Messrs Qusay and Mohammed, but I figure you can plug in any number of reporters and get the same result. The first twist comes not from the article, but from the link itself. Filed in a folder entitled "featuredCrisis", one would expect something more dramatic. Now, of course we can interpret the tone of the title and the quoted "final" as snarky sarcasm, what else would motivate? They loathe Maliki, and would love to get a "Mission Accomplished" moment. All of that aside (It meets our expectation, yes?), did you notice what they now take for granted? Amazing, the surge worked. The local leaders across the country have turned away from the Islamists and joined with the U.S. forces. Finally, and none the less startling, we find the majority of remaining fighters are now "foreign".

Ponder these assumptions for a moment. Each one was a rallying cry for antiwar nutters mere months ago! Remember these tirades? "The surge is a disaster!" "It's a full blown civil war!" "They don't want us there, get out!" I could go on, but it's a bit boring at this juncture. The nutjobs obsess over it, and must be getting very frustrated that no one is listening. If the mainstream press finds nothing horrible to pin on Bush regarding Iraq, they move on to something that at least has legs.

Finally, would they even been talking about a final battle just six months ago? Even dripping with sarcasm, just the words in context say volumes. If it is true, and the majority of hardcore Islamist fighters have escaped to the north, it would represent a last stand. What are they hoping for in the north? It's not a population that supports them, simply terrain more conducive to hiding. Yes, start getting out the "Mission Accomplished" flags. Looks like we might be flying them soon!

McCain's not Abel

2008-01-24T16:13:00.000-10:00

There is a hot debate within conservative ranks over what to do come November and Johny Mac is the ticket. I have the utmost respect for any man who gives everything for his country in service, and John has. But, that is as a man and a private individual. As a politician he is a divisive self aggrandizing ego with apparently a singleness of purpose in attaining fame and power. As a consequence, he has burned the conservative base multiple times with many issues. Furthermore, he has repeatedly played with the devil on the Sunday shows when he should have been finding a more consecrated path someplace else. All of these add up to many, many conservatives ready to forgo a chance at the White House for the next four years.

Where to go? Is it disloyal to close up the wallet, stay home in November, and look to the future? This is a question many are wrestling with. But lets get some perspective. I am a conservative politically. Why? My personal life philosophy is represented there. My education leads me to decide what economic policies are fruitfull to the country, and I find them echoed among conservatives. History is filled with lasting societies that exercised peace through power, so I side with the security moms in the conservative camp. These are all examples of what forms the "conservative base", yet how much success have we had in representation in the last two decades?

The '94 revolution curbed spending to some degree. There was some welfare reform. Bush's response to the threat of global jihad was correctly intentioned. We place two exceptional judges on the Supreme Court. There are a few more examples. But taken in the context of where this country has trended overall, its a few drops vs. a torrent of popular socialism. This reflects more the system of politics than the underlying views of the populace. Americans tend to love our representatives that go to Washington and get something for us. Otherwise, why elect them? We will be stuck in this trend for a long time, so as conservatives, we need to repackage our political philosophy in a way that clearly identifies the individual and group benefits of electing like minded representatives.

This is why Reagan was successful. He could communicate the positive vision of tax cuts, and how that would benefit everyone. He could unveil a world without the Cold War through real and perceived military strength. Conversely, this is where our more conservative candidates have failed. They have the right ideas, the correct policies, the fortitude and character to be good leaders and representatives. But they have failed at revealing a positive vision of the future. Not that some haven't tried. But those attempts have been generally ensnared in the war, economic rhetoric, or some other pessimistic popular perception.

Trapped in public perception, our clearest conservatives have been buried. What we are left with is varying degrees of standard politician. Fred Thompson was closest to a conservative candidate, yet still had a few missing pieces, and a complete washout of a campaign. But this is about McCain, and why he is such a quandary. One answer is that he has played public perception, rode the waves of opinion, sided up with populism for political gain. He brings forth a consistant offering, always to appease what is popular. Always to engender favor with money and power. Going after campaign money, yet leaving union contribution alone. Proposing immigration reform, to appeal to a voting block and garner corporate support in one devious backroom swoop.

There is a parable here. Cain offered up the yield of the field but was rejected. Abel made a sacrifice to God that was accepted. Cain became jealous and enraged and smote his brother. It seems that McCain has offered to us that which is popular, that which is from the field. Additionally, could his jealousy and anger from the 2000 primary sprouted into resentment? Could this be one of his core motivations in repeatedly stabbing at the conservative base for the last seven years?

I don't know all the answers, but I do know that the evidence points toward a disaster under McCain's leadership. We are looking for a conservative leader, a party leader. A bitter maverick is a poor fit. It would seem that finding a conservative leader would be more important than having a placeholder as president. Grasping for power through a particular party in disarray does nothing for our political philosophy. With this in mind, let us turn towards the future, find men of character who can see a bright future, and elect them.

The country is not headed towards conservative ideals, and when we ostensibly held complete power, we were disappointed to find that the party was not conservative. Whether Hillary or McCain is president probably won't result in vast differences. Loosing more seats in the House and Senate will be more important than the above choice. And if you argue simply court appointments, think of the judges appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr.

Abel was murdered, but the path he folowed is clear. Bring to God the acceptable sacrifice. Tend to the flock, the breathing things. Lets find a leader who will do likewise with our conservative ideals. Leave the inanimate ideals of socialism in the field. Don't stand with the son's of Cain. I jest in my metaphor, with kernels of truth.

Lest anyone be offended, I would stand for McCain's entrance, shake his hand anyday and thank him for his service to this country. And for those who take the alegory to far, no, I don't equate the conservative base with God. Lighten up. I ponder however, what is acceptable to the faithful should be reflected in their political allegiances, no?

Another Soros Robot (aka Sorobots)

2008-01-24T11:11:00.000-10:00

So I get a little note extolling the virtues of a "great" website, which turns out to be a resurgent surprise. A resurgence of what? Yes! Its Bush Derangement Syndrome! I guess once you contract the disease, its really hard to not get your fix. Even when the whole world has moved on, these people can't 'move on' for some reason. What is even more amazing is how gullible these people are! Parroting Soros funded propaganda with more fervency than a Mormon missionary. Well, Michelle Malkin had a very amusing response to this 'new revelation' as trumpeted by decrepit fading media. Such a terse, tight synopsis deserves its own line, so go there and enjoy:

MSM tools spread Soros propaganda

I can hear the derision as she writes "tools", with emphasis. To move on (again), I responded to the provocation:

Subject: RE: A great web site

Great? More like insane pablum for the infantile mind. Please, if you can't see past that crap, you're toast. By the way, the truth that sets you free... Hmm, are you set free from your emotional bonds by that propaganda? What could free your mind from the cancerous tentacles of leftist nutterdom? Anyhow, getting kinda lonely over there in peacenik land. What happened to daily death counts, front page car bombs, and 'failed policies'? Where is Iraq? What happened to the civil war? Didn't you argue over and over about how there is a civil war going on in Iraq? From June '06 "... there already IS a civil war going on, and has been for some time." Still holding on to that? Even in the face of new knowledge that many more of the combatants were foreign than we thought?

Gee, it is easy to figure the world out, just do exactly the opposite of whatever you nutter libs suggest. We would be in a better place, and are! Oh wait, the surge was a huge mistake right? Oh, no, you've dumped that and want to go back to "The War is a lie!"

Yeah, why not just get to the real problem, and call for a recount in Florida! You might get somewhere, and satisfy the BDS itch. That's DERANGEMENT in all caps. At some point you have to accept defeat in order to move forward, its part of the healing process.

So, enough with the silly diversions. Truly that is what they are. How about your man Obama? The Clinton machine is ripping him a new one. What side are you falling down on? Neither one makes a very good candidate. B.O. is a political creampuf, and Hill & Bill are absolutely unelectable. Unless our fruitcakes nominate McCain or Huckabee. Or as is talked about, both. Can you imagine it? Hillary would be more divisive as a president than Bush! Incredible! Four years of acrimony on a grander scale than now. And McCain splits the pubs completely. No core support. Tends to not get you elected, but lets pretend. What kind of Pres would he be? Don't see his management style working very well.... And that is a understatement. Micromanager like Bush Sr., yet without the executive skills. Ouch. You can't be a maverick, a underdog, a outside voice when you are the leader. Bad news. So, it looks like we are in for four years of pain no matter where we go.

Have you seen the look in Bill's eyes? Scary. He wants to be the center again, and its pretty obvious. What happens when he becomes the focus of Hill's campaign? Strange world. The best way to ensure a heavy turnout on the right is to get Bill out of the closet. But Hill will already inspire increased turnout. It's a double bonus. However, the best way to get half of them to stay home is send up John. So the whole dynamic gets weird. What is really strange is under the other scenario. Obama is actually polling pretty well with the "Republican light", as in not the core.

He would probably beat a few of our selections, and easily beat McCain. Weird. Simply because he has no negatives, and is magnanimous and upbeat. As long as he doesn't talk about any actual policies, and continues on with the platitudes and fluff, he would fare well.

Hey, on a last note, how in the world do you get to the place where public works is economic stimulus? Is it just that politicians for the most part have zero economic knowledge? I heard a idea floating around, presidential elections are becoming a drain on the economy. Data seems to support this, so a real stimulus package would include shortening up the election cycle. Say three months max. This time around its over a year long, and that ain't good for the markets!

So I wasn't to provocative, and steered the dialog away from the BDS stupidity into something a bit more interesting, but do you think a dyed in the wool nutter can overcome the Sorobot condition? Of course not. Here is the response, each point pertaining to the line of dialog above.

Rant, rant, rant. Your not making a logical argument, but that’s not unusual from the head-in-the-sand right.

Ya, great website. Documents the actual lies of the Scrub far-right war-mongers. In their own words. They lied and lied and lied, and the cost is mover 2 TRILLION dollars. More than enough to rebuild the roads, schools, hospitals etc etc etc that we need but won’t get.

(re: civil war in Iraq) Yes, has been and still is a civil war. Death counts went down for three reasons:

a. the ethnic cleansing is complete…the walls separating the shia from the sunni in Baghdad are complete. And millions have either fled the country or fled to other regions of the country.

b. The Sauder (sp) army stood down to regroup. They are playing the time game.

c. The Americans are no longer risking forces in clearing operations. They are sticking closer to home.

But it’s not over is it. The puppet government of Iraq can’t agree on the time of day. The factions are unable to reach any agreement that will produce a stable government. The Brits see that and are almost out. Others are also withdrawing. Soon on the silly Americans will be there. And they can’t stay. Scrub HAS to take out 30,000 troops before July. He’ll claim that it’s a sign of ‘progress’. What it really is is that those troops will have put in their 12 to 15 months and have to rotated out, and there are no replacements. So, this summer we will see a re-surgence of the war. The American goal is permanent bases, control of the oil, and control of the region. That is not going to happen, not now, not tomorrow, not ever. The Americans have lost the war and they are the only ones who don’t know it, yet.

(re: foreign insurgent percentage) And the source for this assertion is, what?

(re: nutters obvious wrong assessment) Have not backed away from that at all. The surge was a huge mistake…it simply prolongs the inevitable outcome. And the war was a lie, top to bottom. Even the neo-cons have backed away from that one. Nobody still claims the WMD argument, not even Scrub, and Darth Vader has also finally shut-up because his party told him to…. Wanna guess how many appearances Scrub will make with the R Prez candidate? Z E R O. Scrub is the kiss of death for the R’s and they know it.

You might also notice that things continue to go down hill in Afghan. Now there are attacks in the capital. Drugs are plentiful. More of the country is under insurgent control. And Afghan is ‘vital’ to our defense, well, how? Of no importance in any way. How about your buddy General Mush. More of the country is pro-Islamist now than ever. Can’t control the NW provinces. And he resorts to murdering political opponents. Yessir, a real model of democracy!

(re: defeat and healling after Florida) Try to remember the above after November. I’m sure your support the new Democratic President, Democratic House and Democratic Senate. As part of the ‘healing process’. Ya, sure.

(re: Dem field) Well, I go for Senator Obama. No baggage, clearly anti-war, willing to think outside the Washington box.

So, which of the losers are you going to support, Rudi the liar and adulteror, Huck the crazy religious preacher? McCain the confused who still thinks there is a military solution in Iraq?

Consider those who are now the ‘core’ of the R party. Religious fruitloops, rapturists and faith healers on the one hand, deluded fearful American first’ers who think war solves everything on the other. Ain’t gunna win that way anymore!

Ya, President Obama. I like the sound of that.

(re: stimulus package) Now try and follow this. The role of government is NOT to ‘stimulate the economy’; no Republican would think that way. The so-called stimulus package is really just a way to get a. More money to big business. B. cut taxes for the rich C. try and buy votes (at about 500$ a vote. In fact, this is NOT the time to ‘stimulate’ the economy. What is needed is to stabilize the economy and shift to a sustainable economy. A ‘growing’ economy is not sustainable. It just uses up non-renewable resources (like the oceans, for example, considering how those resources are managed now). What’s the status of fishing, worldwide? How about pollutants in the sea? How about the destruction of coral?

What we need, for example, is a ‘one child per family’ policy world-wide. The earth cannot sustain 2+ children per family policy.

That, of course, requires ditching a lot of crazy religious practices….Jesus ain’t agunna save you….sorry about that.

We need to reduce consumption, not increase it.

We need to produce less ‘crap’ and conserve resources.

We need to eliminate welfare-monopoly-government-capitalism

And turn to the one try solution….

Environmental-Socialism!

Well, I must comment in two parts. First the Iraq war perceptions. You have to be exceptionally delusional to think "the ethnic cleansing is complete". Confusing sectarian violence with ethnic cleansing is an egregious error. Ignoring the flood of Iraqis returning to Baghdad and other peacefull regions is just plain blind. Sadr's Mahdi army is not regrouping, it is splintering. Sadr called for a halt, yet Iranian backed elements of the "Mahdi Army" continue to operate. And those elements are being crushed. He wants power, and to get it, will align with whoever looks to promote his influence. Standard politician. Finally we have "Americans no longer risking forces in clearing operations." Right. It's little green men we hired from Prussia driving our Hummers and pounding sidewalks. How thick can you be to make a statement like that? So if we are just sitting on our butts, and its the Iraqi army out doing the clearing ops, it is an even bigger success! Nothing will pervert the course of Bush Lied. No fact can dislodge the antiwar nutter meme. For me, it has gone past amusement, I am genuinely worried about those Americans who are infected with BDS, what can cure it?

The remaining assertions are baseless and boring, no BDS nutter will be convinced that anything is working anywhere. Not a healthy place to exist mentally. Now, lets start with the fun stuff. First is the difference between nutter libs and sane conservatives. We actually do get over defeat pretty easily. For the most part, we loose so many battles to the current atmosphere of populist socialism that you have to remain personally positive and try to influence others with a bright future instead of a constant cancerous pessimism. Our fight is about ideas, and it primarily happens within the larger tent of Independents and Republicans who hold conservative views to varying degree. It matters little about specific wins or losses, unlike the liberal sycophants who are consumed by emotional arguments.

It is very funny to hear libs complain about our candidates in terms of adultery, religion, and war policies. Yet they have no problem apparently with Obama's black power church (I don't care either, no bigotry here), Hillary's war support, Bill's abuse of women, and the list goes on... Even better is the love they all seem to have, on the surface, yet there is NO discussion of actual policies, NO specifics about the war, NO specifics about the economy, just platitudes and class warfare. And now a little bit of dirty politics to amuse us. It's a traveling soap opera on the left. Quite entertaining! But not much to comment on of substance.

So that leaves this insane fusion of socialism and environmentalism. We could see this coming from the 80's. The Red became Green in Europe. And the elite wannabee liberals always looks to idyllic socialist democracies in Europe for the golden model. Nevermind the obvious failure of the welfare state, the lack of economic growth, and reliance on America for security. None of that matters to the nutter lib. They are infused with a bitterness toward their own country, and can not overcome it, irregardless of reality.

First thing to note as a direct comment is the psychotic notion of sustainability. Has any successful society ever stopped growing? Duh... It is in the definition of success. But for the insane lib, success is to be condemned. Government should be there to prevent success. Yeah, socialist government control has worked soooo well historically, why not try it again! Ingenuity, technology, the undaunted overcoming of obstacles is the definition of American dominance. Freedom from taxation, bureaucracy, and government intervention in the marketplace is the subhead. Libs can't take or even comprehend that, so desire to crush it.

Moving on, I love the one child per family people. What idiots! No comprehension of demographics. Fortunately, these people tend to have NO children, and will leave the gene pool to be dominated by my descendants. Everything boils down to a "zero-sum" game of emotional arguments. Craftily used by socialist power mongers to titillate the broken emotional state of the modern liberal. The king powermonger in our day is Soros, hence the perfect designation of Sorobot. Amazing how we can drift off topic, yet when it involves nutter libs, things just come back together no matter where you go.

Let us end with some "crazy religious practices" for good measure. We should carefully observe the blindness of an atheist lib proclaiming "Jesus ain't gonna save you." I don't think they know what needs to be saved. Jesus is alive, and saving me everyday. Saving me from emotional consumption. Saving me from a twisted reprobate mind. Freeing my vision, allowing the opportunity to see decisively, and make choices that lead to a fuller life. Ultimately, a life knowing God through Jesus is complete fulfillment, and a expansion of what man can experience. It is existence that breaks the confinement of the physical, natural realm.

Some are fearful of the apparent loss of control, or balk at the requirement of acknowledging a power that is beyond the self. Others simply have a defensive shell insulating themselves from confrontation at the core of their existence. It is painful to look inside, and find yourself lacking. Many build up a crutch, a support to justify the deficiency. They look to outside stimuli to maintain that crutch. A constant source of reinforcement. This ties in well with the Sorobots and BDS. It's a ready made fountain of emotional reinforcement. Belonging, self justification, emotional invigoration (even if its negative) are all to be found in the propaganda of the nutter left. It is EXACTLY like a cult. Fulfilling the needs of the damaged followers, while taking from them the power each has to decide the way forward.

March on Sorobots! Trudge toward your socialist destiny!

Religion Will Influence My Choice

2007-11-29T10:39:00.000-10:00

I realized something interesting... There is this debate about Romney, and whether we could elect a Mormon president. On one side, there are the liberal secularist, many constitutional conservatives, and independents saying there is no religious test for President, shouldn't matter at all. And, I agree. But who do we actually elect? Married Caucasian males of wider Christian faith exclusively. Now, there was a separate but similar debate I heard recently about appointing a Muslim to a cabinet post so we would 'understand' foreign policy better. Putting two and two together I realized something interesting. The country was founded by Protestant Christians predominantly, and the formation of the culture, government, whole society reflects that. Part of that is the strong respect of freedom. Now, if a religion is formed upon a different ethos, pushes a subservience to God that includes abdication of personal freedoms to the church, and that church pushes the concept of social and moral control through the state, would you consider actively opposing a candidate for governance based on that persons adherence to that faith?

I had to ask myself this, and I think the question is yes. Not in terms of bigotry, or opposition to any one individuals belief. But globals in a persons religion are unavoidable, and if that person makes the choice to agree with said religion, how can they support our constitution in full? A funny thing, as it is easy to believe that an atheist free market conservative will uphold the tenets of the constitution. Its easy to understand, even vote for, a Jew like Lieberman, knowing that his priority is foremost this countries safety, even when I disagree with most of his social views. And it is even possible to comprehend Rudy, who is not in line with his own church, but clearly states his position.

But that brings us to the big two. Even moderate Muslims are a question mark. There is little evidence that supports their (collective) endorsement of the separation of government and religion. Not that it is the paramount issue, but is not reflective of the majority in America, and would play into a voting decision. Again, I don't mean in terms of bigotry or any such, people are free to believe what they want. But when we know what they believe, and it does not fit with the open and free government system in the U.S., why can't that be used in consideration of a candidate?

Second, returning to Romney, how can I fully support someone to make correct decisions, when you know as a absolute certainty that they believe an obvious falsehood? I don't mean "are Mormons Christians" and what not. I mean the obvious phony history surrounding the whole origin of the religion (no hate here, its blatantly obvious to any, and extensively investigated by real anthropologists...). Hey, many very capable Christians believe in the whole ten thousand years since creation thing, but that is obvious ignorance, and someone who promoted such would by on the bottom of my list as well. Again, its not a bigotry thing, you can believe in fairies and frosty the snowman for all I care, but if I know you believe in that, and promote it as real, does that not give me grounds for questioning your decision making capabilities?

It is my right, in this country to decide who will lead us. Many religions do not have that same structure, that's ok. Even Catholics (not really the religion of choice in inspiring the foundation of this country) seem to abdicate freedom in the regards to leadership in the church. Here is where true liberals (old school), libertarians, and some conservatives are in agreement. Freedom of choice permeates the respective philosophies, even when in disagreement. Its a obvious tenet of the atheists, verging on nihilism. Its a huge cornerstone of Protestantism. And for those simply ruled by commerce, holds pretty well again.

Thus I stand, ones religion in the individual context can be a fine indicator for voting, and should not be a big deal. But in the age of PC, you can't disclose such. It come in as a modifier, after issues based decisions, and political platform. For instance, I don't care about Hillary's type of Methodist thinking. Many misguided Christians are swayed by socialist tendency's. I mean the intentions align in wanting to help your fellow many. They just can't see the unavoidable flaw of abdicating that responsibility to government. Socialism will always fail. So even though I agree with more of the values held by the United Methodists like Hillary, I would not vote for her based on that. And I would vote for Romney over any socialist, but I am not comfortable with any Mormon who I didn't know personally to lead us (again, its LEADERSHIP, not friends, family or acquaintance...). Personal knowledge reveals character, and anyone can be part of a religion simply by birth or for community association, and that shouldn't disqualify for office.

So, that leaves the hanging question of analyzing in a governmental context the compatibility of filling that government with individuals who believe in a religion that does not support fully that type of government...

The Cockroaches Skitter

2007-06-21T10:10:00.000-10:00

It is a amazing twist of extreme deliciousness that MSNBC, a network of socialist stooges, has a reporter with a brain. Bill Dedman is his name, and in this article we can just call him the Orkin Man. It is such a incredible exposure of how shallow and narcissistic journalist are that I was fearfull the article would be pulled before I finished reading! Please go read for yourself, if its still there! The twisted responses from journos when asked about their political contributions reads like a clinical psychology text on denial. It definitely crosses party lines, as they all run for cover. What doesn't cross party lines is where the money is going. Can you guess? Did you say fair and balanced? Well, funny thing, Fox has on record five contributors, three to Dem causes and campaigns! How about the totals? What was your guess? Democrat contributors totaled 126, Republican 17. Gee, I can't see a bias in the media at all! So, less than 12% Republican. Still no bias of course.

Now, this is not a scientific study, and is no surprise to any honest observer. In fact, the true exposure is not the fact of mainstream media socialist tendencies. It is the state of mind these people have developed. The drink from the cup of feigned objectivity, pop the purple pill of "objective" reporting. At the root a Utopian higher morality, crafted from emotional responses, that supersedes the common man. For instance, when confronted with the obvious fact that the journo in question had made a political contribution, one representative response was:

"I asked for those contributions back," Amantharaman said. "I don't want to comment on this."

So, basically if the contribution could be made anonymously... Oh, and imagine a reporter not wanting to "comment" on the fact that they actually have a opinion, are a normal person, and support a certain point of view? All of these newsrooms have policies against complicity, the effect of which is a abstraction in the collective mentality, a virtual group schizophrenia.

What do we, the consumer, sense from such people? That they are crazy, and can't be trusted. Who would you want the news from? Someone who told you the truth about their personal opinions, and then told you their interpretation of news and events, along with the facts? Or someone who told you they were completely objective, yet would not disclose their personal opinions? What do they have to hide? It's denial on a massive scale, and has begun to fail with the public. We just don't trust the mainstream media at all. And winning back that trust is not going to be accomplished by restricting the individuals from comments and contributions. It will just alienate the twisted profession from the real world even further.

So Far Away

2007-06-01T10:22:00.000-10:00

Ok, it's twenty questions, and in the box you go! What box? Why, your whole religious philosophy. Try it, but don't buy anything! Ten adds per page is a bit much... I found two things fascinating about this questionnaire. The first is which religions are ranked above/below others. The second is the FACT that it is mainstream to consider secular humanism a religion now. Clearly a established belief system, and they are organized, so only natural to finally recognize such by the whole society. Now, here are the rankings after I performed:

1. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (100%)
2. Seventh Day Adventist (95%)
3. Eastern Orthodox (94%)
4. Roman Catholic (94%)
5. Orthodox Quaker (94%)
6. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (89%)
7. Hinduism (79%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (61%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (57%)
10. Sikhism (57%)
11. Liberal Quakers (56%)
12. Bahai (56%)
13. Jehovah's Witness (49%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (48%)
15. Jainism (47%)
16. Theravada Buddhism (47%)
17. Mahayana Buddhism (44%)
18. Islam (43%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
20. Reform Judaism (39%)
21. Neo-Pagan (38%)
22. Scientology (33%)
23. New Thought (28%)
24. New Age (26%)
25. Taoism (25%)
26. Non-theist (22%)
27. Secular Humanism (16%)

First and foremost, "non-theists" (a.k.a. atheists) rank closer to me that secular humanists. Huh? So the sec-hums actually believe in more emptiness than the atheists... The next oddity in closeness of belief to me is the Orthodox Jews. I definitely expected they would be closer, have to check what the trouble there is. Then we have the Hindus edging out the Mormons. Next, what the heck is a "Liberal Christian Protestant"? Some throwback to archaic Victorian era thought? No modern Lib gets anywhere near the terms Christian and especially Protestant. You have to stretch a bit. I mean, are have you heard of "Protestants for Choice"? How about "Christians for Increased Taxation"? What about "Baptists for Sex Education in Third Grade"? Yeah, doesn't fit to well.

Finally regarding the list, the Quakers come through in a big finish! My ancestors were Friends, and some wrestled with the pacifism. That is a argument I can understand, though disagree with. I do not believe God wants society to "turn the other cheek" when threatened and attacked. Certainly for the individual in polite society it is the proper course. Forgiveness, patience and grace, these attributes elevate discourse. But even as a private individual, you should defend yourself when necessary. So should Western Civilization. It is asinine to ignore threats, and history has many examples of the result.

I would like to see statistics for this poll. It has no demographic information, and is obviously subject to the whims of participants, yet it would be interesting to analyze groupings. Also, each question has a three choice level of importance, haw that factors in to some questions would be fun to see. I had trouble with some questions. The answer as it applied to "standard" doctrine was clear, yet I don't share many of the same beliefs in that regard. I deviate from modern American Christians on a number of issues, though not as it pertains to salvation. However, as pertaining to this poll, we are in good company.

As a parting thought, what does a sec-hum believe in positively? Hard to figure that, but we can see who shares the same abstractions. The farthest third from I are a interesting bunch. Scientologist are in outer space, yet clearly share many areas with the sec-hums. Only eight percent from the Taoist. Strange bedfellows down there, not much in common socially, yet alignment of beliefs. May the one true Creator touch them all.

Compassion and Immigration Palaver

2007-05-29T11:45:00.000-10:00

Well, the Pres. ticked me off with his statement today. It was condescending and offensive to any intelligent conservative that feels strongly about the "amnesty" bill. Or should we call it the "conservative destruction" legislation? But I appealed to my better life, and tried to be persuasive and positive in this letter to George. Of course it is a given that it will be flushed in the great virtual "porta-loo" out back of the White House, but I feel better. Isn't that what really matters?

Dear Mr. President,

No argument seems to sway your current course concerning legislation before the Senate which is now increasingly viewed as "amnesty" by conservatives as it becomes publically digested. Would you perhaps look at this with a even higher perspective? It appears that you view your actions as compassion, and as a Christian, that is commendable. Yet is it in the scope of compassion to not enforce the law? Perhaps if the law was immoral, and against Christian principal your actions would be justified, but it is in the best interest of any country to preserve the "entrance to the house". By not enforcing the law, you give the impression that such laws do not matter, and encourage more to break the law. Could you not have prevented, through effective border security, the breaking of laws by millions of individuals? Is this part of your consideration?

I appeal to your love of God, America, and all humanity. God would not lead you, as the representative of our enforcement, to neglect that duty. Furthermore, the people of America can choose to legally invite many more to this country if that appears necessary. You could champion such a initiative, instead of this back door amnesty. As a further observation, the situation you have created, by not enforcing the law, is creating further problems in the future for America and her neighbors. Subsidizing a whole economy in Mexico will only lead to further erosion of that countries stability, not greater prosperity.

In closing, I would implore you to search your heart concerning what is the correct path. Ignoring the law and the American people is certainly not the correct path, no matter how deeply your compassion for the unfortunate. First enforce the law, then change it if you find it is not representative of our values. Consider who makes up the conservative base, and whether perhaps they are displaying God's heart in this matter. The path of true compassion will not be the path that ignores the law.

Why not push for a large increase in legal immigration? Why not actually enforce the law instead of giving it lip service? You know it is in your power to stop virtually all illegal immigration if you wanted, yet for some reason you can not see that as the compassionate choice. Let people come here "in the light" to start with, and we will build stronger communities irregardless of political stance. Is this not what is right? You want to bring them out of the "shadows", by effectively thwarting the laws we have already. Why are you promoting lawlessness?

In closing, it is very offensive to claim the current legislation is "right", and that those of us reading the legislation and finding fault with it are ignorant. It is no wonder the general population does not trust the government, or view it favorably. To be more specific, you are our representative, have some respect for those who supported you. May God give you grace and peace, illuminating the true path of compassion.

A faithful supporter,

Oh, I cc'd Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, in the hope of fame and fortune of course... Well, I'll pass on the fame. OK, forget the fortune as well, "hope deferred makes the heart sick..."

Proof Some Democrats Are Fearful Simian Narcissists

2007-05-22T12:20:00.000-10:00

This is to good to pass up. Every once in a while you must click through on the blog adds that show up in your own page. I could not resist this one: WHY MOMMY IS A DEMOCRAT. Oh, help me now, why is mommy a democrat? Well off we go to find out! OK, it is a kids book. Mommy is a cute little squirrel (yes, another Dem rodent), and has some cute little squirrellykins. And mommy is apparently worried that her little darlings will grow up to be mean ugly republicans, so she must indoctrinate them now. We get a few sample pages for free, oh goody.

The first sample panel has mommy with her cup of joe looking at her little charges sharing blocks. The text is "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." In the background is a obviously rich couple walking past a bum on a park bench. How clever. But what message would the little darlings get who read such? Democrats equal Mommy... The state will take care of us, and make sure we share. Yes, start the victim culture early. Start the class envy from infancy. Makes you feel good all over. Oh, did I mention the clever artist has the letters for democrat on the blocks? But I found doormat as well, who knows what other subliminal messages are there!

Another panel has the caption "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does." Quite original. The depiction is of a rampaging elephant, and Mommy shielding her little munchkins from sure destruction. I assume the theme continues on, with Mommy becoming the embodiment of all that is wonderfull about big government. Wait, did Dems make sure we are always safe? Didn't quite get that one. The last example panel has Mommy "making sure" that little sponges get to go to school, unlike the bum in the background watching the graduation of the rich kid. Yes, it's the child of those pesky rich people who wouldn't share. But that's not all we get from this website, more gifts abound from actual apes who purchased this Goebbelsian tome.

There is the core of my title to address, and how we do that is click over to the "testimonials" for pure wonderment. You be the judge of this collection of the disturbed. I will express one simple point that this page of accolades exposes so well, liberalism is a religion. They really believe this stuff, and want to indoctrinate their children in the "...long-standing beliefs of a true Democrat." I wonder if one of those long standing beliefs is freedom of choice. You know, like allowing their children to make informed decisions. Oh, that only counts with drugs and abortions. Go enjoy this garish exposition, and remember, liberalism is a religion. A church of narcissists, and dim witted ones at that.

Immigration Bill: Border Fence Lies and Subterfuge

2007-05-18T13:56:00.000-10:00

Forget all the swirling rhetoric about the back stabbing sycophant Senators. Nevermind the parade of simian intelect by the Republican leadership. Forget refilling your high blood pressure meds when you hear McCain rasp about another body blow to the base. No, lets just look at a few of the special bits contained in the legislation concerning securing the border.

What I am talking about is the "comprehensive" fence which is becoming the "imaginary" fence. You know the one that is supposed to help secure the border. It has become hypothetical, yet there is legislation passed last year requiring it. So why aren't they building it? Anyhow, it shrunk. Yep, down to 370 miles. And not only that (Sec.106.c):

The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego Tucson and Yuma Sectors

Yes, lets add it up what that means. We clearly can subtract the 14 miles in San Diego. Definitely they will take off the ten miles of Minuteman fence. Possibly the 75 miles of reservation cattle fence? For Yuma another 20 miles of existing fence. Then the arbitrary length of existing fence in Texas and New Mexico. A conservative guess could be 50 miles, though there is no specifics, hence they may be claiming more cattle fence to upgrade eventually. Who knows? With the numbers above, we have just over 200 miles of new fence to be built, somewhere, sometime. We are being had here, for sure.

Why are they doing this? If we really cared, we could do anything. Close the border completely, like many other countries. We could easily deport most illegal immigrants, not that I advocate that. But why are they not securing the border? Why not just increase legal immigration dramatically? The whole issue has become a twisted push to reward lawbreakers, and invite a new wave of the same. Very strange. We should fight it on principle, and specifically demand that, no matter how many people they want to give our wealth and freedom to, we don't have to see it stolen from us again. Which is easy, build a big, long fence.

A Typical Day of Flames

2007-05-16T11:59:00.000-10:00

I too, get bored at times. To alleviate that boredom, I resort to antagonizing the left. What else satisfies like a good piece of email:

So, the DNC isn't going to have a debate on the FOX News Network.... What are you all afraid of? I thought it was the party of freedom, free speech, free expression. But no, they don't want to answer real questions do they. So, one conservative network vs five liberal ones. Can't take the heat. Hey, when is someone going to ask Hillary the last time she had sex with Bill? You know, like Wallace asking if Romney had premarital sex. Or when is Mathews going to ask Obama "what he hates most about America", oh, yeah, that won't happen either. Gee, what hard question has been asked of any leading Dem? Nothing. Its a plastic fantastic world in the liberal media. Have to keep the appearance up. What a farce.

Hey, I thought the Iraqis wanted us out of Iraq? What happened to your leftist free for all about the Iraq Parliament "resolution" to remove American troops? What happened in the Senate recently? Votes 67 again 29 for? I thought everyone was ready to pullout? I mean that's what libs have been saying... What the hell are those Dems doing! Didn't they win the Senate just to get us out of Iraq? Sheesh, your guys are duplicitous... Sad day for peacenik nutters.

I love the bit about Hill. Questions we all want to know... Anyhow, here is how far gone the left is:

Ah, well, to start with, there is no such thing as the Fox News Network. They don't do the news....

Second, there aren't any liberal news networks, let alone five. They are all corporate owned voices of the right.

A REAL liberal network would carry news from al-jaz for example. None do. They would show the film taken by cameramen in Iraq that show body parts, bodies with holes drilled in them, burning bodies in cars, and a lot of other stuff too. None do. Why? Because the corporate owners of the press know that if the US public saw what is REALLY going on in Iraq we'd have outta there years ago. There just is no hard news available to the US public. It's all rant and cant, fluffy soft don't offend nobody network oatmeal. I sent a flamer to Olbermann the other day when HIS program spent 35 minutes on Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton! I mean, this is NEWS? Since when. The US public is so incredibly stupid, dense and slow, living in it's cheap gas and instant gratification world that most would not know duck poop if one sat on their heads and shat on them. The real problem with democracy is that you ALWAYS get the government you deserve.

Whoa Nelly! Way out there eh? I love days like this.

Ah, I see that you are a open minded "fair and balanced" liberal indeed! So the corporate owned voices of the right are out to get you again! Look out for the Star Chamber minions! Oh those evil right wing corporations... Seriously, how can someone become so isolated from reality? Oh, you answer that! You actually watch Olbermann! You and the four other nutters in the country. Yes, MSNBC, bastion of balanced coverage (if your a white liberal male, like all the hosts). Oh, that is so good, you even sunk down to castigating the objective news leader himself for pandering to ratings. But, you do realize, that his ratings are in the toilet... It is a matter of survival! You should encourage such reporting so he can keep his show!

Now, about this insane crap about the networks showing us what is "REALLY" going on in Iraq. You are in outer space. Beyond Neptune, a very cold and lonely place. It's not enough to to the Jihadists propaganda line, as your liberal journalist nutters do, you want the Voice of Jihad itself! Yes, that's balanced coverage. You can stand both sides of an issue, so long as there are no conservatives. Oh such an open mind!

Lets see, have you seen a single mainstream news report about a successful operation by the US military? Hmmm, why not? We see lots of coverage any time there is a car bomb. Oh, but even that coverage is sterile, yes, where are the shot of the dead children killed by these insane death worshipers? Where are the shots of the maimed civilians? Where are the cameras chasing the ambulances to the hospital? Oh, silence. Yeah, your buddies control the media. They are liberal. They do not want to show anything that would possibly cause support for our troops, in any way. Your full of vile insanity, and you can't even see it. Oh, where is the death toll of terrorists? Silence... Where is the stoning of women for not wanting a arranged marriage? Where are your supposed feminists? Silence. It is all about political power, your liberal buddies would hang their own grandma to further the religion.

You say they are soft and fluffy and don't want to offend anyone, but that is equally stupid. I find it offensive to parade out every second the latest US death toll number. That is sacred to them. They rush to the wires at every roadside bomb, fits the liberal mold. No problem offending anyone there. But bring up 9/11, never. That would offend the victims (and generate support for our overseas policies). No, can't politicize that tragedy!

And to end with that wonderfull assessment of your fellow citizens speaks volumes. That is the attitude of your basic Stalinist. The core behind the evils of communism. The true selfishness of social humanism. "I am smarter, I am more qualified, I should lead you whether you like it or not!" Yes, complain on about democracy. You liberals actually long for something else...

Republican Debate Revelation

2007-05-04T12:13:00.000-10:00

There is much to say concerning the debate, but one point seems to rise above the clutter of commentary. That concerns the vast divide between socialist liberals and conservatives in the area of perception. And one debate question sums up that divide: "What do you dislike most about America?" That is it, the core difference between parties, the over arching difference in world view. Liberals dislike many things, and the pinnacle of dislike is hate. It is natural for them to come up with that question. They have many a collective contingent who can answer that question immediately. In fact, we can guess that a large percentage of liberals would answer, "Bush! I hate Bush!" But if not, it would be some other concern in the mold of racism, class envy, abortion, or any other sub-complaint of the socialist liberals. They exist politically at times solely for the things they dislike, and ultimately hate. Hate is a familiar state for those have a strong emotional lead in their personality, and this seems to be common description for a majority of the modern leftists.

This personality state, where emotion leads reason or will, can be a great asset in many jobs. Take acting as a example. One must become a master of emotional display, forming the very core of personal feelings into something alien and out of context. And do it repeatedly. A expert thespian must suppress the self persona on command, a rare skill. Shall we now suggest a simple answer to the preponderance of leftist nutters in Hollywood? Furthermore, this personality trait may fair well in many employs, but it is not desireable in the context of an elected representative. Emotional manipulation will ease the campaign process certainly. And the greatest politicians historically have been actors of a high caliber. But the finest leaders, those who excel in representing America, are not swayed by emotion, moved from rational decisiveness by mere feelings.

Think about it for a moment. What is public sentiment? What is governance by poll? Is it not simply allowing emotion to guide and lead in the decision making process? Look at the record of the Clinton administration. What were the successful policies? Hard to come up with anything monumental. Yet Bill was a master campaigner. A brilliant politician in his ability to motivate and sway. He created energy, made people feel good, moved them to align with him. Yet, what is his effectiveness as a executive? Hard to come up with anything, isn't it? There are many examples throughout history of leaders who had a superb command of collective emotion, yet failed ultimately as executives.

The archtype in this regard must be Adolf Hitler. Here is a leader who could almost hypnotize the public, bring a crowd to a frenzy, move vast numbers to overlook their natural conscience. He created a 'religion of the state' in effect. Yet, was Adolf a good executive? The greatest executives delegate power based on trust, not compulsion. The most successful understand harnessing the ambition of individuals, creating teams who have vested power, allowing the organic evolution of management. They understand innately when to clamp down, and when to ask for help. Ultimately, they realize how insignificant and faulty they are personally, and develope relationships of trust and dependence. This self realization is the true standard, the foundation of lasting effectiveness.

At this juncture, we must relate the initial perspective of conservatives and liberals as it pertains to emotional decision making with the concept of personal realization. On one hand is the individual who comprehends human frailty, perceives their personal shortcoming, and is able to honestly find trusted guidance. This type of person is not swayed easily by the whim of emotion, the swirling current of public sentiment is ineffective at eroding the foundation of their reasoned positions. For the emotionally led, if they fail to find a anchor for reason, a cognitive bulwark, they are susceptible to the ethereal influence of sentiment. Where can one find that stability? For many Americans it is within the context of their faith. The journey of realization that occurs with the exercise of faith produces a strength of character, a empowering ability to fight the tumult of public sentiment.

Faith is not the only source of such strength of course, there are many ways, but faith is central to a majority of Americans in this context. Especially conservative Americans. Now, that must be contrasted with secular humanists, a large contingent of modern socialist liberals in America. No God, no faith, no protection from the whims of undue emotional influence. In fact, they fear those of faith. They resent being ruled by those who can not see there is 'no God'. And ultimately, they hate the representatives of those they fear. Fear, resentment, hate, all emotions that sway the individual away from reason to irrationality.

I contend it is completely irrational for any American to pose as a presidential debate question, "What do you dislike most about America?" There is no good answer to the question, and the purpose of setting up a trap is ill served. It is a parody of the questioner, needing no answer. Yet it was asked, and to many liberals, there is a answer. From this we can see clear distinctions, consistent differences in the decision process. With that clarity, what rational person could possibly support a modern socialist liberal? Even those who hold closely to their personal issues, issues that keep them voting for socialists, should be able to see how poorly they will be served by their leaders.

In conclusion, I would like to throw up our modern conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, as a example of one who could utilize his emotive ability and govern with executive skill. Some would even claim he was a better actor as president than in his previous profession. Clearly he could see his failings, and could see the strengths in those he relied upon. This debate, held in the Reagan library, was touted as the debate "in search of Reagan", but the questions were not searching for such. The questions searched for nothing positive, they simply reflected the flawed emotional consternation of the leftist media. It was a clear revelation of the state socialist liberals have arrived at, a state of fear and resentment. And the fruit of those feelings, hate. It is not Reagan the left is searching for, of that we can be assured.

From Jimma to Castro, Why Liberals Long For A Stalinist State

2007-05-03T14:22:00.000-10:00

I found the new post by zombietime to be most informative. So informative in fact that I had to spread the love to my favorite lib:

Jimma went to Berserkeley to spout on about his anti-semitism apparently. This little album of events is more telling than a hundred articles: Demonstration at the Jimmy Carter Appearance in Berkeley

Oh my, why would leftist anti-semites thank Jimma? Your in a great crowd of the confused it seems, label wise. Reminds me of the evergreen nuts, passionate, evocative, and completely brainless. Progressive indeed... Pretty good representation of the nutters.

How about those Obamaites? Never miss a chance... Here it's the Kucinich wackos. Got their table up all the time. Can't figure them out... So much effort, so little brain. And he is dead in the water. I guess they must figure it's fun or something, then just vote for Obama after Dennis the Menace falls flat again.

Of course we expect something glorious and informative in reply:

Well, when you are wrong you are at least consistent...

Being anti-Israeli government policy is NOT the same as being anti-Semitic or, more accurately, since Palestinians are also Semites, anti-Israel. Being anti-American government policy is NOT the same as being anti-American, or, more accurately, anti-American democracy (which Bush is).

As I say, wrong, but consistently wrong...

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Can I be so wrong? If the shoe fits, and Jimma's seems to. But the far more interesting parallel occurs at the point of claiming Bush is against democracy. Very odd, and harkens back to the theme of liberal moral relativism. But the extension of the parallel is even better:

Ah, your own personal inconvenient truth? Confusion? Try to stay with the flow... Being a supporter of Hamas, PLO, or any other various terrorist organizations bent on Israels distruction is qualification enough for the classic slur of anti-semite. But you don't like it, now you want 'accuracy' and redefinition?

So, Bush is anti-Democracy? Just because he won't do your bidding? You sound like a typical modern liberal, who can't accept democracy if it takes away some of your power. Your all for democracy if you win, but revert to wannabe Stalinist if you loose. Still crying about January 2001, the root of all liberal evil.

Lets investigate this Anti-American government thing.... In a democracy, wouldn't you accept the will of the people? The president is elected by the people, but you can't accept it. Emotionally you reject the fact, you denigrate the majority who voted, and try to thwart the majorities rule. Sounds like you liberals are not to happy with democracy. Sounds like confusion, jealousy, and a lust for power that's been deferred (making the heart sick).

But more nefarious is the attempt at usurping the duly elected Administration through means which clearly benefit enemies and harm America. That is not anti-American government policy, that is treachery. And all for political gain, the cheapest of illicit rewards. What does inspire such action? What common thread inspires the pond scum amalgamation of modern liberal peacenik socialist nutters? We need a example that captures the heart of this question, and to the south, in Cuba, there is such a metaphor.

Why do socialist pig journos love Castro? Why do influential leftist pig Hollywood elites love Castro? Why do duplicitous democrat leaders love Castro? Contained in this heady amour are the clues to modern liberal motivation. Ultimately the adoration connects to Castro's absolute power, and it's what liberals subconsciously want. They naturally gravitate to that power. Why do they long for that power? They internally despise your average Joe, and think he is too stupid for his own good. They resent the majorities values and choices, and want to throw off that control, whether consciously or suppressed deep in the psyche. Castro's power, and any other Stalinist thug, does not depend on the 'whims of the masses'.

From whence springs this resentment? What engenders a individual to loath the values of his fellow countryman? Is not the principal of Liberalism openness and inclusion? Freedom of expression, freedom in all aspects of life... Yet the vocal leaders in this leftist fold look up to a communist dictator. What does this tell us? Are modern socialist scum really willing to sell out the power each individual lends to our government for the comfort of absolute rule? Is the feeling of superiority a posture of defense, isolating and insulating oneself from the ideals of the general public?

It is my opinion that the religion of liberalism either collects individuals who act out their fear in defensive superiority or creates such members through emotional collectivism. Whether absorbed or created, the outcome is the same, they fear the general public, distrust the average Joe, and do not want to submit themselves to a government elected by such. Hence the severe dimorphism of Democrat party members (as in democracy) apparently longing for Stalinist control.

A honest supporter of democracy would embrace the decision of the majority, and if in disagreement, would try to convince the majority of the benefit and positive outcome of the views put forth in future elections. That is not acts or intention of modern liberals. They have no views to put forth, only criticism. They attempt to thwart the decision of the majority, they question the validity of the democratic system, even go so far as to risk national intrests simply for grabs at power.

What is next? Will they turn to more destructive means to implement socialist ideals? If the elected President is the object of ignorant hatered, and a communist thug is idolized, what benefit lay upon the path of these simian nutters? They call for freedom, yet long for a king to rule over them. But I should now retreat from my high perch, denigrating the denigrators, despising the despisers, taking the uber elite stance above the elites. I descend to the masses, and thank God for Grace. There is no average Joe. Every American has the opportunity to excel, as well as the freedom to forgo excellence. Whether fat and happy, or stressed and bothered, we have the greatest country in the history of civilization, and the chance to make it even better. One of the paths to a better America is the exposure of liberal insanity, so end my latest contribution.

Liberal Religious Side Note

2007-05-02T11:26:00.000-10:00

More evidence of liberalism as a religion. Time to replace the Bible in the nightstand at green conscious hotels with Gore's little piece of insanity. Yes, that's right, no Gideon, no Truth, just "Inconvenience" so to speak. Of course they are replacing the lights as well, read all for yourself in the piece: California Hotels Go Green With Low-Flow Toilets, Solar Lights. I would say that the green sect is the most powerful in the liberal cult, but the anti-war peaceniks are close. Of course there is quite a bit of crossover... You can be Green and a peacenik, but do all sects mix I wonder? Does Gore wear green robes?

On Modern Liberal Moral Relativism

2007-05-02T10:21:00.000-10:00

Here we have a glimpse of the liberal mind, and how putty like it can be:

So, what this about Luis Posada Carriles? He blows up an airliner and we release him on bail? Ah...... Ain't doing something like that terrorism? ah, but he's OUR terrorist!

I dashed off a suitable reply:

Yeah, stuff like that doesn't fit well with your moral relativism...

In confusion the lib responds:

Ah, clearly ya gotta brush up on what relativism means...

So I must take that bait!

Se, you base your action on opinion, opinion derived from a questionable guidance structure. It's inherent in modern liberalism to just move around loosly defining whats is good or bad to suit your opinion. That is the epitome of moral relativism. I think it fits just fine.

Well dear reader, am I wrong? But in defense:

The above is BS. I quote the first sentence from Wikepedia:

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences.

As a first cut, the above is ok by me. There are no moral or ethical universals; moral truth is culturally based. Yup. How that relates to liberalism I'm not quite sure. For example, there are quite a few Catholic liberals, which to me sounds like a contradiction in terms, but not to them......strange world.

Well, don't look a gift horse in the mouth! I was actually aghast at this, how more myopic can liberalism become? Even to deny the obvious, while explaining the said obviousness, in concurrent statements! So we soldier on:

You claim "BS" on moral relativism, yet validate my observation! Pure schizophrenia! Your liberal religion is your moral standard! And its based on opinions and feelings! Completely relative! The gage of 'good' and 'bad' simply moves around based upon your subcultures political desires! It's collective insanity.

How about I use simple terms from your chosen definition? Is it not the preference of your subcult to destroy the Bush administration? Is that not the overarching goal of those thrown together by the political loss in January 2001? Is it not circumstance which binds you together with likeminded socialists, with whom your 'moral' boundaries fluctuate to justify political success? There are a multitude of clear instances substantiating such chaotic behavior within the modern liberal religion.

What is most interesting to me is the statement that you seem to agree with concerning objective moral truths. Is this correct? You can not accept objective truth, simply because it doesn't conform to your subcult's circumstance? That is fascinating. How telling that the left seems to exist for the purpose of establishing its own self serving moral behavior. It is similar to a virus in that regard I guess.

Now, for the last point, nutter modern liberals do not like partial religious converts. "How can a Catholic be a liberal!" Yes, it seems absurd, that anyone who believes in God could be a liberal, doesn't it? But, consider that there are a plethora of 'cultural' Catholics, or any other religious label you prefer. They like the community, the ritual, the society of religion. But have not considered seriously the constitution of their personal philosophy and beliefs. They are easy pickings for the emotionally driven modern liberal subcult. I would suppose if asked to defend their beliefs, it would be easier for them to regurgitate modern liberal rhetoric than profess a experience of God.

To expand on the above, for just a moment, we should consider the emotional 'religious' experience versus spiritual reality. It is easy to supplant good feelings with actual faith. Giving money feels good, listening to a concert on Sunday morning feels good, many religious activities feel good, yet one can exist in perpetuity in those good feelings without ever exercising faith or even believing in God. And as a counter, one can 'care' about specific issues or situations to the point of the suspension of cognition. This is the creation of belief, the faith of the foolish, which is the core dynamic of modern liberalism. Emotional response can supplant the exercise of actual spirituality, and can become a religion unto itself. So the hapless hereditary Catholic mentioned above is doubly susceptible to becoming a liberal, its no wonder there are many such.

Transplanting Ol' Abe

2007-04-09T10:21:00.000-10:00

Well, I get some strange stuff, but this one sparked my interest. Hyperbole and rhetoric aside, ponder as you peruse what Lincoln would think of today's liberals. Then, as a final question, lets consider the war in Iraq, how would he view that conflict? Before such headiness, we must dredge through the provocation:

Ya know, there is a lot to be said for this guy Lincoln, the first, last and only true Republican….

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861 Thanks Abe, now tell the current Republican party of mean spirited money grubbers.

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858), p. 27. I think he means that in a democracy/republic the government depends of popular support. Hmmmmm……so, what percent are against the war George….??

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Meditation on the Divine Will" (September 2, 1862?), pp. 403-404. This bears some deep deep thought. “It is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party…..” Hmmmmm

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860. Which is why, in all times and in all places, Conservatives are for slavery, for repression of ideas, for censorship, for the status quo, against change, against progress, support kings and tyrants, against free speech, democracy and republican government. Can you name one single case where this is not so?

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p. 109. Wow. Wow! Right on Abie baby! Greece, Rome, and a host of others. And now, America? Is the American public so weak, so besotted with materialism, so fearful of phony terrorist plots? Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but, fear itself!” A nation of chicken-littles with a government shouting Wolf 9/11 Wolf 9/11 at every turn. Pick yourselves up Americans, there is a job to be done by the ‘last best chance for Liberty’, the United States.

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 273. So, where do you think Lincoln would stand on the war in Iraq?

Well, isn't this interesting! Twisting history for petty partisan politics. Is that the way of Lincoln? Was he such a divider, as to pervert history for personal political gain? At least we can establish one pertinent fact, the twisting and turning of snippets was not in the great stateman's bag of acceptable tricks. However, I aspire to greatness, though the way be full of tribulation. And I am sure my responses will be fruitless wanderings, yet try I must. The first point concerned labor and capitol, and that labor was the greater. But, contrary to modern liberal inanity, he is not talking about 'labor unions' but actual hard work. And what a salve it could be! Instead of wasting great 'capitol' on lazy misguided masses, make them labor. Instead of organizing lazy misguided 'workers' into 'labor unions' who inevitably decrease the amount of 'labor' accomplished, abolish such and engender healthy competition. The concept is called Capitolism, where hard work is rewarded by success. Unlike socialism, where working harder leads to increased penalization. Get it yet? Socialism equals less 'labor', not good. Capitolism leads to more 'labor', good. That clears up point number one.

For the second contention, lets consider facts. Bush attained re-election during this Iraq conflict, and not exactly at the rosy juncture we would have wished. That is a real poll, not opinion. Two years later, liberals peaceniks are screaming that they have a 'mandate' on the war, because of a minor midterm success. Not a resounding concensus of the public sentiment. However, it can be expected that any country would tire of a ongoing conflict, and we are the same. Yet if you at this time ask the public whether they want success in Iraq or failure, the majority will express a desire for success. The real 'percentage against the war' is around thirty, the same number of deranged Bush haters from January 2001. When they lost...

Now we come to a very strange duality. A confessed atheist expressing deep thought concerning the purpose of God. Well, fascinating how that plays out in the brain. Total confusion? Abject denial? Anyhow, for those who do believe, we can agree on a few simple things. There is a great verse concerning nations and war: "For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; and Jehovah delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken Jehovah, the God of their fathers. So they executed judgment upon Joash." (2 Chronicles 24:24) And I quote, "This bears some deep thought." So God, favored a small Syrian force in battle, and judgment fell upon those who had forsaken Him. The real question one should ask at this point is "Have I forsaken God?" Then with a pure heart and clear conscience you could approach the question of God's purpose as it concerns modern politics. Anything less is to elevate ones personal judgment to that of the divine, resulting in presumptuous self idolatry. Again, what is closest to God's heart and purpose is to establish a relationship with every individual, this is supersedant to political exposition.

Moving on to the next quote, we find such convenience in the twisting of Lincoln's prose! Yet there is the question, "What is conservatism?" Today we stand for freedom, economic and cultural, from the unwashed hordes of liberal socialists who attempt to force the immorality of a small minority upon the general population. That immorality is both social and fiscal, as we have long since passed the point of equitable taxation. We stand against the enslavement that is the modern welfare state. We stand against the cult of death that circulates within the modern liberal movement as it pertains to the murder of the unborn, the execution of those who do not attain to a acceptable 'quality of life', and the assisting of self destruction of the old and weak. There are many things that construct the modern conservative movement, and many members do not agree with everything in the core platform. That is to be expected, and encouraged as we debate these topics further. As to the insane statements about conservatives by the commenter, all we need say is that the premise of the Republican party at inception was anti-slavery. That alone is sufficient to expose the nutters reinvention of history. But if we need to look at the track record of liberal vs conservative on different topics such as racism, free speech, the support of tyrants or many other topics we can. I think the record is clear in the modern day. What party perpetually divides based upon the color of a mans skin? Democrat! Who calls for 'fair use of airwaves' simply to suppress opposing views? Democrats! Who would prefer the reinstatement of a tyrant in Iraq? Democrats! Not much more needs to be addressed here, the contention of the provocateur is moot.

On the next topic of National Security I would make two comments. One, a force did rise up from the ocean so to speak, and attacked us. It is a nemesis not seen in history, and a foe likely to inflict much societal damage before its relegation to the changing times. But can mere terrorism destroy us? Not likely, here I completely agree with Abe. It will come from within, our destroyer. And it will come in the form of a mentality so infected with universal socialism that we will be driven to the brink to stop it. In fact it has come, we have been infected, and are scarcely waking to the fact. When a significant portion of the population cares not for the Ohio or Blue Ridge as stated, or any other part of our great country for that matter, but is concerned more with what evil America has inflicted upon the world, what failed policy has alienated our beloved 'friends'. Consumed with criticism and derision for American culture, from the best to the worst. We have our enemy, right in our midst. And they don't even know it. They struggle and fight for a sick utopia that could never exist, and deny all that makes this country great. Lincoln, if present, could see the stain, and would proclaim with a fervent voice against it. He would inevitably stand with those who want liberty and freedom. He would stand be they American, African, Asian, European, even Afghan or Iraqi.

And if he were president today, might he not do as in the past and sidestep even the Constitution to further the cause of freedom? Yea, even to the point of arresting dissidents and suppressing the misguided. To further the parallel, what did the Dems of the day do? Oh, you mean the infamous Copperheads? Did they not view Lincoln as a 'tyrant' who was destroying the very fabric of America? Peaceniks never change. Did they not demand peace and a cessation of the war? At a cost we can now asses as potentially disastrous. Yes, many parallels can be made in the fight for freedom, but choosing Lincoln as a target to support liberal rhetoric and idiocy was not effective. In fact, today we have no draft. We have no generationally impactfull tragic sacrifice of American lives. No martial law, no economic upheaval, no personal threat to vast regions of American soil. Many parallels are unequivocal. But one thing is for certain, standing up for freedom is a choice we can make, however unpopular at certain times. And it is one we should continue to make now, Lincoln would.

Brainstorming A Solution For Governmental Change

2007-04-04T11:09:00.000-10:00

Well, this all started with a discussion of McCain's blundering statements while in Iraq, but that is very uninteresting. We get to the fun part which deals with a surprising situation. For the fiscal conservative, it has been a long time since we have seen leadership that sides with less spending, less government. Strangely enough, the true socialist feels equally left out of current American politics. I start with a rant then move on from there, but the focus of the discussion comes later, this first part is for entertainment value:

Well, you wont find me going to bat for JohnJohn. All those years of pandering to the media have "gone done him in." Yeah, where is the straight talk express? My wish list is short now. I like Duncan Hunter. But the toss up will probably be Juliani vs Romney. And no bigotry involved, I would have to go with Juliani. He actually works well as a executive for the interests of the people. Romney comes across as one who leads by mediation. And his touted success is in three things. Cleaning up the Olympics in Salt Lake City. Taking over the Big Dig. And making billions in the private sector. None of those seems particularly core to the populations interest. Ok, the Big Pork hole is, but did he stop the insane waste of money? Did he do anything besides take over, after the failure was evident for years and years? I'm not sure that is in the same league. Juliani has obvious executive talent in regards to serving real needs of the population. And on the one sticky point of abortion, its a toss up. Do you want someone who says they changed their mind after considering the moral implications of embryonic stem cells, or someone who has a reasoned view for a woman's choice? I don't like either one. First, its hard to trust Romney based on his explanation, it smacks of "I'm running for President, now I'm pro-life!" And on the other, do we think Rudy will NOT consider this issue as it pertains to the SCOTUS?

I love how you liberals are so duplicitous. You fear Juliani at this point, so attack attack attack. But what about all the candidates? And their spouses? Yes, especially their spouses. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Can't wait to see how Bill plays out next year! Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. He is the money raiser, couldn't make it without the machine. But put them on stage together, Hill looks weak, very weak. Bill has the touch, she is like a dead fish nodding her head. It's going to be fun fun fun. I so hope she makes it through the primary. Virtually guarantees another four years of the executive branch for us. Obama would be nice as well, he is a lightweight. At this point, Al has more chance than all the rest of them, and he ain't running!

Well, hows that for tripping the light fantastic! But, due to the lack of incendiary comments, the reply was thoughtful and measured, quite out of character! I must reevaluate my tactics...

My problem is that there just isn't a candidate I want to go out and work for. Certainly no R!! My last R was Dan Evans. None of the announced D's really turn my crank....there isn't a 'real' capital L Liberal in the bunch. Guess what I'd really like to see is a multiparty system with about 7 parties and a parliamentary system.... at least I'd like to see real Left and Right, Liberal vs Conservative parties based on principal and ideas. The D's and the R's are just too too much alike for me. I want a (very) social Liberal with fiscal restraint. Right now I don't see anybody with any fiscal restraint.... And, of course somebody who would keep a balanced military at about a third of current spending. Also a 'mixed' economy that is sustainable. Revamp the tax code, both individual and corporate. In my increasingly less frequent sane moments it makes little difference to me how many wives any of them had or have. I'm a lot more concerned about how they would use the military, taxation, science, relations with Congress; and what they actually know. Where's Ike? Where's Harry? Give me a President that is really concerned about the country and less concerned about how much money they have to spend getting elected.

Now, I think there is a point of commonality here. Amazing, yet true. My continuation was in exploration of that potential base of agreement:

See, here is where we have consensus. I don't think socialism does anything but suppress exceptionalism, but I respect any socialist that stands on their platform, and acts accordingly after being elected. I disagree about the system change. I think we have great strength in a two party system, unfortunately at this time, media and money are overpowering debate and coalition forming. I like seeing the debate played out in two parties, then throwing up the best product. It removes some of the inanity surrounding the parliamentary system and true democracies. We gain stability and 'memory' for the loss of a bit of national dialog. Easy choice there!

Certainly it would be nice to see someone like Ike or Harry in the sense that you had no doubt (well, I wasn't there, but from what I perceive in reading) about where their concerns were. Less ambition, more 'service', yet that doesn't seem to inspire at our point in time. Career politicians need less leadership qualities, and more public presence to get elected in this climate. Which does not make for very good leadership.

I love how the Dem's, who last November assured us that they would reign in the gross spending of the pubs, have gone pork crazy. Not a fiscal conservative in the whole bunch. I repeat again, there are twelve fiscal conservatives in the Senate, as indicated by the Coburn amendment vote. And about the same percentage in the House. Pretty long ways to go.... It's a sad state of affairs for sure. Pork everywhere, but that's not whats really expensive.... Time to hack away at entitlements.... However, how electable is that platform? Not...

Well, even with the button pushing here, I got interesting furtherance of a core theme:

Guess I don't see ANY real socialists anywhere in the US government! A long way from. I'd call myself a 'social democrat', I think. I think the capitalist system is flawed and leads naturally to monopoly and oligarchy to say nothing of the exploitation of labor. So, I'm in favor of certain limits on capitalism, plus certain economic ceilings and floors to limit the range of difference between the rich and poor in society on the one hand and floors to ensure that nobody goes with food, shelter, clothing and a minimum quality of life. What do you mean by exceptionalism? In American historical writing that word has a fairly precise meaning; a meaning that I think is harshly refuted by historical events. On the pork issue, I don't have numbers but would be greatly surprised if the current D pork was even a small fraction of the R port of the last 12 years, especially when the pork to the corporate masters of the R party were included. (The D's, of course, NEVER work(ed) hand in glove with big business.....)

How about we have a 'draft'? Some are called to the Army, some to Vista, some to local government service, and some to Congress. No elections, you are 'called' by the luck of the draw to serve 2 years in the H of R or 6 years in the Senate. That would take quite an act of faith in 'the common man' to support!

Now, about 'entitlements'. I don't mind some changes in Social Security, as long as us oldsters get back the two trillion in SS surpluses the government has stolen from us in the past 20 plus years; plus interest, of course. The 'entitlements' I want to see cut concern such things as us taxpayers paying for highways for truckers, airports for the airlines, land condemnations for the oil companies and similar handouts to big business. Oh, and nobody gets more than a 5% profit on defense contracts either; nobody should make big bucks off defending 'the American way of life', which just so happens to include those contractors.

Ah, here we get to the original crux of thought. Is perhaps mandatory civil service a good idea for the country? Did you expect that to be the topic at which we could see agreement betwixt a solid conservative and a far left nutter? Strange world, but there it is. I would fully support a mandatory year of civil service for every High School graduate. The principal would not be geared towards one type of service, but broadly spread to meet the range of capabilities that population group represents. Some are intelligent hard working people headed off to college. For those a internship in a prospective field of interest, or perhaps in the public sector applying talents learned. Others may be interested in military service, and this would be the perfect time to get a 'year' to try out such a endeavor. Many more would have no idea what they want from life, and a suitable 'job' could be chosen at random to get out and see a different location and community. There are many possible combinations. And for those who have not been successful, this is the chance to switch locations, change environments, and get assistance in moving forward.

As to removing the election process from political positions, that is not a good idea. But implementing a change in the campaign process could benefit America at this point. Not the insane campaign finance reforms ideas and legislation already passed. I would repeal McCain Feingold immediately if I were King! (Now thats democratic...) But we could do something radical like mandatory job testing. Yes, every candidate must take a comprehensive exam and the results made public. This would clear up some of the 'slick' image issues. And then for contested federal office elections, mandatory open debates. That, coupled with the testing would weed out quite a few. Not that every leader must be a exemplary debater, but if they aren't, they better be damn smart. Here is where mandatory service can play a interesting role. Create a Independent Office of Elections Ombudsman that has the sole purpose of crafting the testing and debate format for politicians. This office would be staffed with randomly selected qualifying volunteers. Their terms of service would be limitted to a few years, nonrenewable. During that time, they would craft the 'background' questions for upcoming years, and oversee the current election cycles debating and testing.

Such ambitious plans are fraught with difficulty when it come to implementation however. I am sure there are many holes in the ideas above. Leaving that be, we return to a scary thought as presented by our beloved socialist, namely that American is decidedly un-exceptional. This is a very tightly held view of the modern leftist liberal, and a sad one. I don't need to view my country as the greatest source of freedom in the world, it is (and this is an objective un-ethnocentric non-historic label of exceptionalism). However, socialism is not entirely about freedom, and it is natural to disparage the idea of a 'beacon' or 'shining light' when you would prefer a governmental system that suppresses certain freedoms. There is a big difference as well between all men being created equal, and all men being equally talented. Or hard working for that matter. Is it now the job of elitist to decide who should benefit form a individuals talent and work? is that freedom?

We have found common ground with the socialist nutter, in that the modern political process has failed to provide us with specific representation. Additionally, we see the need for increased participation of youthful citizens in the common national good. I don't think that gets us a consensus, and certainly no coalition, but these ideas should be injected into the debate on both side. Appart from that we are left with the vacuum of intelligent platforms expressed by our current political leaders, on both the right and far left. It is a strange state of affairs. Something must give, or we will be saddled with the same stagnant governmental structure for many more years.

The Little Joementum Redux

2007-03-09T12:33:00.000-10:00

I was just rereading the significant sections of the Congressional report regarding Playboy Joe, and have to comment. No, the big Joementum is our beloved Senator, this is about little Joe, former Ambassador to Gabon (tough job for sure), and grand protector of all things SECRET, especially his lovely secret agent girl wife. I have trod this path before, back when it was interesting, and even speculated that the Libby trial could generate tons of fun, but alas, all for not. It was boring, sad, and clearly a trite effort. Two years of special investigation, and what have they concluded? "Where is Rove! Where is Cheney! Where is our blood sacrifice!" Yes, the left is still livid about Fitzmas, second only to the wonderful month of Jan, 2001. Forget 9/11, these are the dates liberals really cringe over. Anyhow, back to my general impressions of the report.

I notice now, that the Ambassador of Disaster had very little to say concerning the primary question. Chatting with a few retired officials, sipping tea on the veranda, then scheming a way to make millions... Oh, that last part isn't quite in the report. In fact, the report gives the impression that the King of Diploswing had such useless information, that it was not sent around generally. Gee, that's great. So the reality was, CURRENT Nigerian officials were in direct talks with the ACTUAL U.S. Ambassador concerning potential unsanctioned sales. Those same officials OF COURSE, claimed to have no contact with 'rouge' states officially. And why in the world would they admit to such weather it had happened or not? Duh, no wonder the CIA pointy-sticks wanted additional information. And the one useful thing Mr. Suave himself provided was evidence of a additional meeting betwixt the nasty Iraq and noble pure Niger.

What cracks me up is the contention of the Nigerian officials that the uranium production was very secure, as the French ran the operation. Is that the same French who at the time were raking in very large lumps of Oil for Food cash? The report is not clear on whether that France was the same as the Security Council France that went to bat for Saddam against the U.S., and provided a nice back door for billions in oil sales. Of course they wouldn't think of letting Saddam get hold of any uranium... Not the peace loving French. Never.

So, after you read the report again, see if you come to the interesting conclusion that I did, our intelligence service is a joke, and so is Joe. I want to be served better than that. But, from such inauspicious origins, comes the Wilson show! It has vibe, it has energy, and now it's got a movie and book deal! Goooo Joe! History will forever recall what a honest and forthright guy you were... or, at least in your book, your wife's book, and her new movie. Holy-weird history will give you peace and glory, don't worry. And your nutter fan base will immortalize you, till the next artificial scandal comes along.

The Four Unconscionable Lies Weisberg Demands You Believe (or you must be stupid)

2007-03-08T10:24:00.000-10:00

So I get sent this nice article with the tag "a breath of fresh air", and thinking something nice or funny must be inside, what do you guess I find? Jacob Weisberg's little tidbit of arrogant liberal smuggish brain mugging drivel. Well, we simply must destroy!

Hah, stagnant swamp gas! What a idiot, and if you are somehow claiming that is the truth, well, guilt by association. And here I thought a 'breath of fresh air' meant you were going to talk about something else... Ok, lets get specific:

1) So the war was a mistake? Irregardless of how duplicitous a peacenik idiot can get, you have to be a soulless moron to want Saddam back, which is the implication. Or is there some other magic fairyland solution that was 'right around the corner' in the global socialist dream world of UN sanctions and resolutions? (Need I mention OIL FOR FOOD?) Likewise, is the implication that the U.S., who's goal is a free democratic state, is a worse Stalinist overlord than Saddam? Free elections, a constitution, free markets, even the freedom to fight a civil war if need be, though that is not our goal. Ah, liberal power to the people, but only the people we like... Now, with that idiotic view out of the way, an assumption he attributes as truth for all, he then claims most politicians won't admit their mistake. Duh, a simian buffoon can see through that one, yeah, even a buffoon in a liberal echo chamber... like SLATE readers.

2) For the big lie number two, Mr. Pointy Head claims that we aren't acknowledging American soldiers 'victimization'... WHOA! Imagine that, another liberal idiot trying to create more victims! Would never have expected that. Why doesn't he head down to any military hospital and take a poll, "Hello, do you feel like a victim? You should, you know." What a elitist prig, with no class at all, except perhaps class envy, which is the next slander of our troops. Another liberal idiot promoting the view of 'compulsory' opportunity driven enlistment. That argument has been crushed many times, yet is so convenient, most libs can't let go. It's capped off with the line: "Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not." Oh! So Mr. Pointystick knows about cannon fodder! Much better than the troops even, cause he is SMARTER than they are... At this point we can pretty much discount anything Jake has to say, cause we obviously won't understand it with our faulty, uneducated, unenlightened point of view.

3) The "Great Waste", is something so despicable, it's worthy of the term unpatriotic. And anyone who holds that view, is utterly beyond the pale. Irregardless of a individuals support of the Iraq war, no loss of a American soldier is a waste. We could be defeated, our society destroyed, and doomsday occurs, but the soldiers are fighting not just for their mission, but for each other. And to have a socialist pig journo try and force that assumption on the general public is truly Anti-American. Disgusting, and I would make the same claim about Obama and McCain had they not retracted their statements. Both of them, I believe, were not intending to claim waste as interpreted. Mr. Pointless, on the other hand, disapproves of the 'banal' euphemisms like "sacrifice". This is most likely a derivative of his nihilistic, insulated persona, and I would challenge him to stand up to those who take that risk, and have made that sacrifice, and explain how much more pure his self serving existence is. Anyone who concurs with this pint of view is equally open to derision, again, whether you agree with war or not.

4) For his final 'make what I say truth' blather, there is the stupid contention that we are 'loosing' or have already 'lost' the Iraq war. No, Mr. Worhtless, wars are won or lost when they are finished. How stupid are you? But we know you do not want to win, and you want to make sure everyone else should follow and intend us to loose as well. How about you jump off a bridge with a bag of bricks in your hand. After you go down, I will claim that obviously you have drown. Am I correct? Don't avoid the truth of my statement! Your condition is drowning, you can't make it, as claimed by experts! I am sure the point will be lost in the muddled mind of liberals who "have decided" that we lost. How about acknowledging the unpleasant truth that your views are destructive to society, and will weaken and undermine our nation? Grow strong Mr. Noteworthy, and confront the truth of your despicable, elitist, Anti-American viewpoint. Realize that you have succumbed to believing your own rhetoric and break free of the journalist echo chamber.

Well, it was a valiant attempt, however successful. Fight on seekers of the truth!

More Global Meltdown

2007-03-06T10:25:00.000-10:00

I sent off a article that was amusing, "Allegre's second thoughts", with the tag-line:

Drat, even the pointy headed socialist frogs are figuring it out... But, much as I LOATH socialists, when your right, your right.

What a funny reply, exhorting me to read the source:

Ah, before you go jumping off ze deep end along with the National Post of Canada you should perhaps actually read ze article in questions, oui? Voila, l'article! I do not see a recantation here, I see a we don't know for sure, let's wait and see.....and not simply follow fad and fashion. Ze good researcher always checks ze resources primarie, oui?

Apparently my humorous and sarcastic motivation for forwarding the 'news' article was not recognized in its brilliance. Alas, the direct approach in return is called for:

Hello? Your telling me to not jump off the deep end? I have read a multitude of primary source articles on said topic, along with corroborating seminars and discussions from self same leading experts, and your trying to say I am missing something? You get your opinion on the topic from pop science, and your telling ME not to jump off the deep end? Please, don't mess with it. So, you go read a article and its conclusion is "we don't know for sure", while at the same time the IPCC has declared for an absolute certainty of anthropogenic forcing, and even has a panel discussing a 'maximum temperature' target, and you don't think that is a recantation? It's a full on revolution if he has the cahones to stick with that message. And how in the hell do you figure that a position of critical skepticism concerning man made global warming is "jumping off the deep end" anyhow? How many freaking blue 'Al Gore' flavor global warming pills did it take for you to get there? Or have your priors caused your brain to drift away from science? And the exhortation to not 'simply follow fad and fashion' is absolutely hilarious! The 'pop science' blue pill cruncher mentality is entirely fad and fashion!

Unfortunately, many in my own scientific community have embraced fad and fashion for fame and profit! Blasphemy you say? Look at the billions they are getting for global climate change, and the accolades poured out on those willing to 'speculate' in the correct direction. On the other hand, vocal skeptics are shunned in many places, and can plan on rejection when submitting proposals along those lines. What happened to the real core of scientific investigation in this regard? I think it is quite simple, when 'private' conjecture within the climate sciences during the seventies leaked out into public forums, activists and alarmist jumped on it quickly with popular result. The same scientists reacted to that public exposure in a natural way, and began to investigate speculative projections more closely. They were able to do this in conjunction with the massive increase in computational resources, but not with a concurrent increase in data. Model resolution far outstripped actual data long ago, and has exponentially exceeded it with today's supercomputers. That is our greatest physical failing, albeit not intentionally. One supercomputing center, with diverse uses, can run into the tens of millions. Conversely, a single project to measure a few data points in the ocean over months of time consumes the same amount of resources, and is useful to very specific investigators. For even regional coverage, hundreds of square kilometers, it would require hundreds of millions. And what is necessary is long time series of global measurement.

The best global measurements we have regarding climate change have only a short few decades of coverage. And those measurements are primarily atmospheric and ocean surface, as satellite instruments cannot penetrate ocean depths at this time. This is the equivalent of trying to determine how a car works by filming it from a distance. You can see it move, tell what color it is, and watch it stop for gas, but what makes it go? Additionally, even the short records of global coverage have raised new issues of complexity regarding climate modeling. To sum up, we know very little about what controls the climate. And even more interesting, some of it could be entirely random and chaotic. Predict that... So populist alarm-ism as is the cry of the day has little going for it. All major players in the debate have vested interest in the short term public perspective, most of which is motivated by money.

Concise and well crafted, if I don't say so myself. (pat pat... with arrogant smirk)

The Liberalism of William Wilberforce

2007-03-05T10:39:00.000-10:00

You could only get this from a truly, beyond the pale, blue pill popping modern nutter liberal:

Well,
Went and saw a great movie last nite.
Amazing Grace (yes, the song)
About William Wilburforce,
An MP who spent 30 years pushing for a bill to end the slave trade in the British Empire.
Of course, the Conservatives/Tories of his day were opposed to ending slavery, because they made money hand over fist in the Triangle Trade.
But, you know those damn Liberals. If something is wrong, they fight tooth and nail for change.
You know, things like slavery.
Damn liberals...

Yes, wouldn't perhaps be about a Christian pushing for change based on the principle of Freedom arrived at through his faith could it? Yes, liberals were a force for good, until they became socialist pigs and rejected God. You might want to adjust your context there a bit, your modern secular liberal scum philosophy would have nothing to do with the man. And I wonder if William would possibly be pro-life? Hmmm, ya think? The modern struggle against the culture of death is paralleled in the abolitionist movement. So I would say, those tenacious Christian activists, if something is wrong they fight tooth and nail for change, against things like, you know, killing unborn humans.

Where did his tenacity and conviction come from? Inspired by the glories of liberal thought? Yeah, I can hear it now: "Amazing humanism, how sweet the sound, that inspired a liberal like me! ..." Glad you liked the movie, sad that you can't see the mote in your own eye. I love the title and intention inherent in on of William's most influential writings: "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity". A man who, without pride or pretense, can claim to know real Christianity, is one of great character. There is a fantastic introduction in the book (third printing?), maybe you could get some context of its purpose: "It is a contrast between Christianity lowered, misapprehended, obscured, falsified, by the prevailing doctrine and morals of the day, and Christianity as it came from heaven, as it remains in all its freshness in the Sacred Records, as it is loved and obeyed by those in every age, who, like the primitive Christians, or our Reformers of the sixteenth century, come out from the world, and live unto God by the faith of a crucified Savior." A reformer in the Anglican church, lookout! So William's real pounding desire was to see a revival of Christian values in the UK? Now that is a real liberal.

I wonder what the great liberal's view on politics was? Well, if we delve further into this fine text there is a fairly concise statement towards that question: "Legislators must act fully as Christians. The public mind expects this, and will bear them out in it. England must rise to her high destiny. If she remain stationary, -but she cannot remain stationary- she will decline and perish, unless she press on in the noble career which providence now opens before her." I am afraid your band of socialist secular humanists are a long, long ways from a man like this. So now that we have cleared up that little trap of history, lets address a interesting question about the divergence of state sponsored religion, religion of the crown, and freedom of religion.

These three conditions existed in the west at the time of Wilberforce, and the outcome of countries practicing each model could be examined. I propose this in light of the apparent contradiction in William's desire for reform within the church. Though the Anglican church was free of Rome's influence for generations, it had persecuted fellow Christians, many of whom emigrated to the New World. Perhaps the structure of a sect that is inextricably tied to the government lends itself to the corruption expressed by the title of William's work. This does not mean the modern interpretation of 'Separation of Church and State' as bandied about by secularist in the modern day. What it represents is the strength in having diverse decentralized Christian communities lending their support to a government of the people. That is close to the intentions of our founding fathers, and probably something Wilberforce would approve of with hindsight of a couple hundred years.

One can only wonder, if his mother had not been fearful of his becoming a evangelical, whether history would have been quite different! However, speculation is just that, and in no way am I suggesting he may have become a second George Whitefield, but the thought is enticing. Anyhow, what a wonderful story about a remarkable man. A giant of a man that we would be wise to emulate in our daily activities, especially in the concerns of political philosophy, and precisely as that philosophy relates to the underlying Christian principals of open, honest, and moral governance. Unshackle the bondage that is secular humanism! Pull back the blinding veil of modern phony liberalism! You too could proclaim with peace and joy: "... Was blind, but now I see!"

To Talk or Not to Talk! (with Solutions for Iraq)

2007-03-02T14:32:00.000-10:00

Sometimes it is instructive to send news articles amongst friends, so I did:

URL:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070301/D8NJ9AM80.html

Message:Oh, so Bush has actually been pressuring Arab states to talk... but they don't want to. "Two Arab diplomats in Cairo said Wednesday that the U.S. recently increased pressure on some Arab governments to press them to attend the conference,..."

Of course the response was worthy for a liberal rant:

Ah, now read the entire section..

"Two Arab diplomats in Cairo said Wednesday that the U.S. recently increased pressure on some Arab governments to press them to attend the conference, after they initially had turned down invitations from the Iraqi government. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. Syria and Egypt confirmed separately they would attend, but there was no immediate comment from Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, Turkey and Kuwait also were invited, along with the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference."

Each side in the Mideast's widening Shiite-Sunni split has accused another of being responsible for the spiraling violence in Iraq. Iraqi officials have complained that Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not doing enough to help calm Iraq, while the Sunni countries in turn blame Iraq's Shiite-led government for failing to rein in death squads and Shiite militias. Well, I can think of at least two reasons why other Arab governments might not want to get involved. First, they don’t want their own populations to get any idea the they might be acting as tools of the warmonger Americans simply by being in the same room with those who kill fellow Muslims by the thousands without any remorse, concern or care. Second, they are a mix of Sunni and Shia, and do not want to get involved in the Shite/Sunni dispute. Take Saudi Arabia, where the government is largely of one sect and the people are largely of the other. Who needs to cause problems at home? Who believes the Americans are REALLY after anything constructive? Not me. What’s really interesting is that AFTER Iran said it would attend, the Bushies very quickly said, well, of course we aren’t going to talk DIRECTLY with Iran or Syria. What are the Americans gunna do, walk around the buffet dinner with their eyes on the ceiling so they don’t see Iranians or Syrians? What a bunch of fools! Hey, Condi, bring the President of Iran a cup of coffee and a finger sandwich and sit down in a nice quiet corner of the room and have a heart to heart talk. What have we got to lose? But now, the phony-Christian moralists wanna be pure and not get contaminated by the axis of evil Muslim Persian devils!

Hah! What arrogance, as if I didn't read the article. Apart from the thinly veiled religious bigotry, where is the answer to my provocation? The liberal perspective is always "If Bush is involved, it has got to be bad." Wow, eight years of complete mental and emotional constipation. If nothing else, Bush will leave a lasting legacy in the world of therapists serving liberals. When I first began a response, it was to be short and snippy. Then I caught a thought that I tried to run with, you decide if it was successful or not.

Still nothing good you can find anywhere? Surprise surprise. Not that I expected any change in consistency... (smile) I love this: "Who believes the Americans are REALLY after anything constructive? Not me." No kidding? Couldn't have figured that out from any previous statements. Notice how that view is DESTRUCTIVE and creates a myriad of mental traps you consistently fall into with any situation? There is no escape for you from this mental and emotional bondage it seems. Anyhow, back to the reality of Arab insanity. We can leave Bush out of it, as you seem to have no objectivity or measured context from which to argue if the president is involved. (It's called BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome)

I see two possible scenarios playing out from here, and they depend on Iraq Shia motivations. Even with that there are qualifications due to the mixed primary source messages that are available ('mist' of war?). It appears that there is a general sentiment of revenge against Bath atrocity fueling the sectarian violence. On the other side (still considering Iraqi Shia) there is a sentiment aligned with (but not attached to) the same nutty 12th Imam stuff who could be increasingly influenced by Iranian Mullah magic. Neither of these has matured into a pervasive force, and self interest still rules the public. But both sentiments are fluid and could easily ignite frenzied violence if given enough room or provocation. So, the overall general public must back their government to a extent where they can maintain the lid on both common popular movements. Yet unlike Al Qaida, or other foreign involvement, the government has to court the Shia population away from support of these movements, just crushing them will only add to the fervency of each. The revenue sharing agreement recently passed will go a ways toward this goal, as money begins to flow. And what money it is! Iraq already produces more oil than Indonesia and Qatar combined, with increased production on the horizon with increased stability. Of course, Iran would like to control some of that, so would many others.

If the general Shia populations perceives that the Government will be able to provide jobs and security they may abandon the more radical ideas. If they wont give up support of these populist semi-radical ideas, then security will be very difficult for anyone to provide. This seems to be key. Fighting the Islamist Radicals will continue no matter what happens, and is a separate issue at this point. I don't think the average Iraqi would hesitate long in giving up a Al Qaida member or other radical. But they obviously have not changed sentiment regarding the other two elements. If they had, it would take less than a month to stabilize much of the violent regions. So that appears to be the real roadblock at this juncture. Granted, two of the Sunni provinces are still rife with disgruntled former Bathist and Al Qaida sympathizers, but that, like western Pakistan, is a separate problem, and not a real threat to a stable functioning Iraq government (of some form). Pakistan is a bad example of course, as its not exceptionally stable. The whole Arab region is a bad example, as there is not much in the way of freedom, education, or respect of human rights. As a step towards progress though, even a semi democratic Iraq will change the whole Arab map.

Can a free Iraq exist in a repressive, 12th century Arab world? Or would it become the prime target of radicals for years to come simply due to its 'Westernization'? This is where I part with established policy. It is not about one country or region. It is about a dark oppressive society that will consume a sea of blood before it emerges from the Arab Dark Age. If we have that perspective, maybe our policy would become less complex. Export freedom, import oil. Yet we can not force freedom on a society, and we can not buy freedom for a region. Men and machines have ravaged the Arab world for many years, to little avail. Much like the trillions of aid dumped into Africa, with little result. Buy the oil, sell them DVD's, and let them duke it out amongst themselves. Unfortunately in this modern time, isolationism has become a impossibility with the advent of global Islamic Radical terror. No future of 'stick to our shores' if we intend to retain our personal security.

With this broad picture in mind, the purpose of securing Iraq should become similar to that of securing the Korean peninsula in the '50s. Create at least a secure functioning region in the Kurdish north where commerce and freedom can flourish. Even this permanent foothold would have a significant impact in the region. Next, focus on secure zones that we have absolute control over. Begin to restrict American patrol and movement to controlling those clear areas and real terror interdiction. What I mean by this is begin to downsize military involvement to anti-Jihadist activities and operations and control of sterile zones. This will lead to increased violence in some areas, but with the perspective outlined, any transfer to Iraq control will be one that has a frictional element. Why is this pullback necessary? It must happen in order to regain the initiative in the propaganda battle.

By 'redeploying' a portion of the Iraq force and then changing the mission publicly to one of anti-Jihadist hunting only, we would be given a time frame to build a structure of security that is easy to maintain and requires lower troop levels. At the same time allowing Iraq security forces to adjust for the conditions they will eventually face many years hence. All this could be implemented rapidly thus thwarting some of the Anti-American element in the Iraqi public perception. In real terms, we could 'cut the force in half' by summer of 2007 without hindering any anti terror activities. In real troop levels this could be masked by the permanent presence in the north being a 'extension' base of power. Rotations and equipment increases would happen there as (hopefully) planned. The one extreme variable in this short term plan hinges on the strengthening Baghdad government. If there is a weakening of power, or a serious collapse of cooperation, this plan would have to include retaining or increasing security around the government, or letting it fall, which would be a severe humanitarian disaster and increased security risk.

In essence, the prolonged formation of a stable governing structure in Iraq coupled with the failure of this administration to marshal the American public has created a situation where we are unable to increase our presence or change tactics easily. So with the current 'surge' and the decrease in violence in Baghdad, there is a bit of political capital that needs to be used effectively, and the implementing the plan as shown before the end of summer would short circuit criticism of the 'surge' tactic and shift gears within the public debate. It will also allow for the Iraqi government to make autonomy claims if it appears that we are downsizing, thus garnering more of the absolutely necessary general Shia confidence and support. Whether the Iraqis can suppress the two sentiments outlined and maintain a level of security long enough for the proverbial "money to flow" will depend entirely on Iraqis, there is nothing in the short term that Americans appear to be able to do apart from what they are doing. We lost the chance to 'crush' and hold the worst areas, and we can not allow the descent into chaos. Now, the effectiveness of 20/20 hindsight is weak and I am not sure that a 100k increase in troops two years ago would have actually suppressed the sectarian uprising, but that is a separate debate.

Of course most of the short term speculation is just that, but the concept of integrating our short term goals into a cohesive long term strategy to counter Islamic Radical expansion that hinges on Arab long term socioeconomics and systematic cultural repression. There are certainly wiser and more informed strategies that could be constructed in the short term, but establishing the long range goal has not been expressed publicly beyond platitudes in most cases. This is something the modern western Muslim could make great strides in and begin to lead the debate eventually. Championing women's rights, economic freedom, and religious tolerance would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, that tend to get one killed in the Arab world, most recently seen in the assassination of a Pakistani woman politician for not wearing a headscarf. They have a long way to go, and seem to be either idling or heading in reverse in some regions. Additionally, the Muslim community living in the west has not raised its voice against the radicals. This should concern them, as they are a target of the Radicals. Leaders in the West need to throw off the yolk of political correctness and reject the diversity police in this long term strategic fight. Concisely frame the argument, even while suffering with archaic policies. Speak truth, even if it offends the Saudis. Challenge partners on the clearest issues, like women's suffrage, even in the face of cooled relations. There can be no other way eventually.

In the end I do advocate discussion! Yet not the unilateral waste of time nutter libs would force upon us in regards to Iran. My discussions would be continual challenges to the Arab world to end repression, free society, and abandon mono-theocracy! Down with Jihad!

When Progressive Becomes a Religion

2007-03-01T16:12:00.000-10:00

Here is my kind of entertainment. Conversations that expose the Liberal Religion for what it is, your basic Stalinism. But it begins in such a innocuous way:

Hmmmmmm...... China and Japan have savings rates of over 50%........ The US has a negative savings rate.....ie, we are living off our savings. Result, we borrow A LOT from China and Japan. So.... We are in hock to them for a lot (a whole lot) of money. Hmmmmmmm......

My reply:

And with the unholy, unintended cabal of liberal doofus educators and Corporate Banks that make billions on ridiculous credit, it ain't going to change soon. There is virtually no practical economics taught in school. Why?

As you can see, 'them's fightn' words', so we know what to expect, right?

ah, hard to know how to answer this......

You watched any television lately? Been looking at what you get in the mail perhaps? Don't you think American corporations are hell bent on trying to sell us an enormous range of crap and junk we don't need? I mean, take a gander at the commercials ur kids are watching on TV these days! And the applications for 'easy' credit cards come by the boxload. Zero percent interest (for the first six minutes), buy now,pay later (and forever). But that's what you get with unregulated free form theft capitalism; 22% and 24% interest rates are the standard! But that's what you neocon types just love---profit before common sense, profit before country, profit before anything. Remember, it is a basic tenet of capitalism that the ONLY responsibility corporate management has is to produce profit for its investors. Any economist will tell you that we can't live like this forever. There will come a reckoning, in the form of massive economic collapse.....the history of capitalism is chockablock with these cycles, and it ain't over yet. Care to buy any tulip bulbs? (an economists joke.....)

Sheesh, always the same, pessimism, doom, and gloom. I don't want tulips, I want more stock in financials, as that sector has done quite well. Anyhow, what did we send back...

What you are describing is a society that has no sense of personal responsibility. That is not a product of add campaigns... but of bad education. Its the proliferation of welfare mentality, victimization, and inflated self esteem. Not a result of capitalism. Education reform! Return competition to the school system, and kick out the failed socialization curricula! You want to blame a symptom of consumerism, and regulate. But that is the problem! Looking to government to correct what appears to socialist feelgooders as exploitation. Never addressing the root of improving the individual, just coddle up some more victims.

Damn liberalism is backasswards!

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! Tension, rhetoric, heated impulsive argument!

All the ad people have been wrong all these years? All the corporations have been wasting their money by buying advertising? Television spots have no influence on consumer buying habits and choices? Where ya been lad? Trouble with you CCCRW's is that you live in a wonder world of should'a, would'a, could'a.....trying to tell everybody what 'ought' to be, how we 'ought' be behave, what we 'ought' to do. You don't deal with the real world of how people actually act, how people actually make life style choices. You've become hung up on crackpot religious moral philosophies that pre-date the scientific study of human behavior. All human 'failings' are 'moral' choices to you, not learned and situational responses to stimuli. Join the 19th century and then come into the 21st.

For example. I know very well what 'causes crime'. And I also know very well that moral admonishment, punishment, prisons and 'finding Jesus' isn't the answer. There is no morally based 'solution' to the 'crime problem'. I know the CCCRW moralists and 'holier than thou' breast beaters don't like that, but there it is.

Ok, now the veil is lifting! But, what is underneath? Not a enlightening argument, mostly ranting and raving against some religious demon. Oh well, take what you can get. Funny that someone can 'know' that finding Jesus is not the answer, when they have never had that experience. And of course, invalidate anything of the sort for the unwashed...

Boy, you gettn' real defensive again? Whats up? Cause and effect man, its pretty simple. Of course adverts work, and your state retirement fund happily increases in value from successful advertising. But its a idiotic liberal idea that people are somehow being forced to watch tv, look at billboards, listen to radio spots. You can turn most of it off. Most people choose not to. So, why don't you advocate mandated limits on media usage? Makes as much logical sense as your want of more corporate regulation. And whats this insane babel about my side trying to tell people what to do? YOUR THE LIB WHO WANTS TO USE THE GOVERNMENT TO RESTRICT FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!! What insane babel. Here you go, life is just a bunch of responses to stimuli. ITS NOT JOHNIE'S FAULT HE CHOPPED UP JANE, HIS MOMMY WAS REPRESSIVE... Yep, that's the outcome of your 'so called' study of human behavior, a society of the lowest common denominator, moral equivalence, mush for brains nihilists. Oh, that's progress all right. And whats this BS that "you know" what causes crime, and that moral judicial systems don't work? Are you the king of the world now? You have placed yourself very high in judgment... Yet the foundation of your lofty perch is a 'belief' in a philosophy of governance, yes a veritable godless religion of social humanism, that has never engendered success. Please...

Did I make my point? I get it, but will we receive a counter to the obvious clarity of liberal moral relativism? If you guessed no...

Gee, there's that 11th century scholastic philosophy bunk again. All you gotta do is use your 'free will' and 'make a choice'! Moralistic theological thinking in the 21st century. Inadequate and obsolete ideas from the dank dark dead past. You can't accept that 'man' is just another kind of animal, susceptible to all the conditioning, learning, training and physio-psychological of the other primates and all living things. You have to make every decision into a 'moral' choice, when 'moral choices' are garbage old-think ideas. The useful conception of right and wrong isn't 'moral' at all, its based on utility, function, purpose, object and equity; commonly agreed up social values of producing 'the good life' for all of societies members, a shared set of secular human values in which are members of the community are valued productive members, not toys of a remote wrathful father-figure deity who hides in the clouds commanding us to obey him or he'll do terrible things to us. Oh Zeus, Oh Wootan, Oh Baal, protect little me! Forgive me for my pretended offenses against you! Have your sacred priesthood tell me what to think , what to do, where to go, how to behave....for I have no mind of my own. I cannot think for myself, I need your sacred book to tell me how to think. I'm just a weak willed sinner, oh whimper oh whine.

Of course we know how to reduce crime! We've had adequate crime-control strategies in the West for more than a hundred years. Give me the political power to sweep aside the medieval religious mind and I could reduce crime to a small fraction of its current level. What's lacking isn't the strategy but the political will, because the public mind is still controlled by mystical religious moralisms that are out of step with modern science. While you dwell on 'fault' I'd prefer to look for prevention.

Now we see the real beast within! Fear of the unknown, life at the level of the animals, and arrogance of 'knowing' what is right and what is wrong. Furthermore, this is the view you, I, and everyone else must have, otherwise they rate no consideration. Well, lets get frisky!

Ah, you fail to perceive the trap you have fallen into. The mentality you express is one of grand superiority, towering confidence in your personal beliefs, and defensive derision for anything else. The true nature of secular humanism is its incredible audacity. Refusal to accept others, unable to compromise, eventual compulsion to denigrate opposing viewpoints. It's a sad myopic world parading as 'openness' and 'acceptance'. However, it seems to be that once one converts to your religion, they pitch all universal objectivity, in favor of populism and groupthink. Who can't allow for a diverse world?

Another failure of socialist nutters spouting off about secular human values is to perceive the monumental hypocrisy in such statements. On one hand, you say you value all members of the community, but in the same breath prove you actually have great disdain for the majority of that same community. What grand tragedy is this? Trashing the values of the larger community and attempting to impose your own? Its the oligarchy for sure, Stalin would be proud. Make them productive members! Give them the good life! The good life where you have forced the majority to bow down to your self perceived superior philosophy! Ah, that is progress all right. Just the concept of believing the masses are sheep, weak willed puppets, who need secular humanism to save them is very corrupting. No free thinker there. No strong will in that elitist position. Just nihilistic self glory, and social defensiveness. Emotional self preservation in the form of group mental agreement and ego stroking. Couple that with the Grand Denial of the total failure of socialism wherever it rears its ugly head and you have a religion in the uber cult category. The worship of self, elevating man to be his own god.

Furthermore, it is asinine from a scientific perspective to claim some grand progress in the modern day that is decoupled from Christianity in the West. Any objective analysis can not separate the influence, in fact the dominance of Christian principals and thought. Yet the defensive secular humanist MUST not credit anything of the sort, as it infringes upon his own beliefs. It is of absolute importance to refuse the positive influence of faith on society, this would introduce doubt into the belief that is the foundation of secular humanism. They claim no god but man.

Liberals Throwing the Race Card in Defense of Jihad

2007-02-23T11:35:00.000-10:00

I REALLY can't believe this one. Now, somehow, identifying Jihadists or Radical Islamist as BAD, I'm a racist! Yep, makes whopping lots of sense! Perfectly reasonable! Just take enough little blue pills and you will get the same conclusion in no time. If you haven't noticed, I'm at a loss on this one. So far from normalcy that its scary. See for yourself:

Yes, racist, as in the following quotes, from you: "This is fueled by a philosophy that does not value life... the overwhelming primary source of terrorism does not come from radicals in those groups. It comes from one clearly identifiable source... the Arab Muslim community as a unconscious/conscious facilitator." Yes, racist.

I'm not even sure bin Laden himself could follow that one. I'm coming around to the view that modern liberalism is a greater threat to America than radical Islam. It's insidious and poisons the mind, soul, and heart. The epitome of evil wrapped with feel good gift paper. At least the Jihadists are overt in their loathing... This little tidbit came with a kicker concerning the last post:

Then, we have: "Have you not convicted the US of systematic torture, rendition, terror based solely on accusation? HMMMM?"

So...a. Bush and Cheney have both publicly admitted the above.
b. We have survivors of the process who will testify to the torture.
c. We have at least 4 governments in Europe who are asking for CIA people to be arrested and bought to trial.
d. Several nationals of the countries involved have admitted their involvement.
e. investigative journalists have id'ed the planes, tail numbers, flight times etc etc.

So, I say, on to court. Give us a chance to prove it under oath, in court. Bet ya won't..... No get outta jail card free. Problem is, little if any of this appears in the controlled American press. If you CCCRW's say it aint so, let's go to trial and see what the courts do with it. Ya, I know you hate due process, rules of evidence, witnesses, cross examination, but hey, that's how you get to truth in democratic judicial process; not by drum head court martials in the middle of the night. The American process has become the old nacht und nebel of the national socialists. What wonderful company you now have. Finally: "you can't see that cause WE are the bad guys, WE are the instigators of terror." Wrong again. All we liberals are saying is, we do it too. We too are terrorists, just like them. The notion of 'american exceptionalism' is dead. No more 'city on a hill' bullshit. The Americans, the West, is just as bad as anybody else. The Russians in Chechnya, the French in Algeria, the Brits in Kenya, Israel in Palestine and Lebanon and the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq. We ain't so high and mighty....we are guilty of the same practices as they are, and often on a larger scale.

So in response to these amazing statements I get a bit heated:

Unbelievable! Don't stick to your incorrect accusation on this one, or you will prove yourself damaged, base and irrelevant.

Radical Islam does not value life, and they prove it by action. The philosophy of radical Islam is evil. Nothing to do with race. So, no racism there....

The primary source of terrorism today comes from radical Islamists. Another statement of fact. Nothing to do with race or racism.

Accusing the Arab Muslim community of possible facilitation of said radical groups is another fact. This deals potentially with a ethnic group (however all Arab Muslims are not the same race), but has nothing to do with racism.

You better get off this or you will get yourself in trouble. First, by such accusations, you don't seem to have a very clear definition of racism. Second, are you trying to say radical Islam is somehow a race or ethnic group? Asinine. Third, throwing around race accusations is a simian tactic that gets you further into the gutter than class envy. Don't do it, its wrong. To summarize again:

Radical Islam - evil philosophy - nothing to do with race
Source of Terrorism - Radical Islam - nothing to do with race
Arab Muslim complicity in Radical Islam support - statement of fact as per modern polling data - nothing to do with racism

Now, if you have sunk so far as to not be able to identify evil philosophies, and everything has its moral equivalence for you, fine. Go tell your local Al Qaida recruiter that you understand how it is, send you money to Hezbollah, cause everyone hurts, write a letter to Mymood I'minajihad explaining liberal support for all. Unbelievable. Sick corruption of the mind. Anyhow, drop the racist thing, or my estimation of the conversation will diminish. You really stepped in the sewer on that one, and it continues to stink.

Going forward, are you misunderstanding systematic again? You have evidence of a few renditions. The President acknowledged the practice in a few extreme cases. I say "Congratulations Mr. President on actually doing some necessary covert action, I'm sorry a few got caught. Lets make sure that doesn't happen in the future (the getting caught part)." Yes, in other words, I am all for the fact that covert actions are sometimes necessary. However, we have discussed this in the past, and it is not productive to return upon divergent opinions. I agree, if they get caught, you pay the price in publicity, so you better realize that before hand and be prepared for that cost. Conversely, the current debacle is fueled by anti-American Euro-socialists, and I would thwart them at every turn on political principal. Soon to be relabeled 'Eurostan', they ought to look at their own future security more closely.

Now for what is a really sick admission: "We too are terrorists, just like them. The notion of 'american exceptionalism' is dead." In your mind this may be true. And what killed exeptionalism in your mind? What caused you to think your a terrorist to? Could it be a evil twisted philosophy of moral equivalence? Could that have caused you to think this way? Could it be the result of the corrupting influence inherent in modern liberalism? Is the source of this statement a reflection of reality or simply the glasses you wear? What a sad result. Maybe subconsciously you have the great liberal guilt complex as well? Whatever the cause, it is a clear indication that you refuse to see America objectively anymore. Your liberal filter has created a land of doom and depression, and with that in view, how can you move towards anything positive? It's tragic and seemingly hopeless. It almost seems that your view is a inevitable product of having no hope. Hope deferred makes the heart sick. Maybe you want to heed a statement of George Washington and use his prescription for rebuilding our institutions and society:

"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Emphatically! Impossible otherwise!

The Terrorists that Liberals Actually See

2007-02-22T11:15:00.000-10:00

Well, it has become a strange world, as many have seen. I am surprised on a daily basis, but with this next exchange, my incredulity meter pegs. This all begins with the Administrations recent victory regarding terrorist detentions.

Re the latest appellate court ruling...
Does that mean, just for example, that if, say Italy, were to scoop up an American CIA agent from somewhere, say in Italy, or Germany, or maybe the US, that Italy could then lawfully hold that person without charge for any length of time, without legal representation, hold a secret military trial, and then execute that person, and the US could do nothing about it. After all, but US law, that process is 'legal'. A most interesting precedent. Hope to hell I never get arrested in France and declared an enemy combatant! Does this also apply to American 'military' personnel 'detained' while engaged in 'terrorist' activities in, oh, Iraq? The spinning noise you hear are the 'Founding Fathers' in their collective graves...

Nice sentiment for the troops! Well, I got a bit testy in my response to this, but approached one aspect quite creatively (in my own mind):

BS, your full o'shit again. They are freaking spies! Every country has them, and ways to deal with them. You want to make a construction to denigrate the US and its activities. Your not interested in what the founding fathers would really think. Get real. If any spy gets caught breaking the law of another country, which happens often enough, they are not paraded around in a publicity hounding kangaroo court. We generally deport them, or try them, or try them in abstentia. If Italy wants to start a covert war on US spies, they would not be serving their national interest, hence they don't. I think your safe while traveling, unless you all the sudden convert to Islam and travel to nefarious areas. Unless of course, you have taken too many blue pills, and now view yourself as a terrorist. Some of your ilk think so, anyone buying gasoline is a supporter of the great terrorist Bush and should be tried. Seen a bunch of Shinto suicide bombers lately? Seen any Catholic car bombs lately? How about Sicilians blowing up marketplaces? No? Haven't seen any? I think in your new definition of terrorism we should include liberal political activism as a mental terrorization of a peaceful traditional culture. We're all terrorists now, hoho hoho... Dense, brainless, and not unexpected from the amoral left.

You are correct that some things are legal. Good thing we have tools to deal with modern terrorist organizations. Thank goodness there have been no new attacks on US soil do to the diligent work of our nations finest! Yes, grind on that for a while. So, been to any secret military trials or executions lately?

That has probably got a bit of emotional twist, more than I usually let slip, but it is starting to grate on my nerves when people denigrate our finest citizens, and especially accuse such of being 'terrorist' in some stupid liberal redefinition. But the followup gets even better:

I take it that you don't actually have to PROVE anything, the accusation is sufficient to convict. You do talk about Muslims in what is quite a racist way, you know. Do you ever wonder WHY they have turned to suicide bombings?

Ok, at this point your sense of decorum dries up, no? But, this is the way these people think. It is wrong, contorted, and extremely bad for this nation, but we have to deal with it somehow. See if I remained steady:

What? I talk about Muslims in a racist way? Never thought you would sink down that road, interesting. So which statement elicited that liberal stock accusation? Hmm, you think its racist to actively look for recent converts to Islam that travel to nefarious areas? If so, I can't help you, you've lost reason, objectivity, and mental discourse to the parade of emotional inanity that is modern liberalism. If anything, I step on all these other examples, that if you will notice, historically have done the acts attributed. At this time, however, the overwhelming primary source of terrorism does not come from radicals in those groups. It comes from one clearly identifiable source... Oh, wait, you can't see that cause WE are the bad guys, WE are the instigators of terror. Unbelievable. How many little blue pills does it take to get there? Furthermore, it would be religious bigotry, not racism. Although, I don't believe I crossed the bigot line. If you reread, I was pretty careful, unlike some others and their statements about Christianity. In fact, you could say it's the one accepted form of religious bigotry today, as practice by many liberals, yourself included at times. Again, I'm shocked at how infected you have become. Modern liberalism is a mind numbing virus..

Now, this is very funny:

"I take it that you don't actually have to PROVE anything, the accusation is sufficient to convict."

Don't expose liberals favorite tactics so quickly! Have you not convicted the US of systematic torture, rendition, terror based solely on accusation? HMMMM? Unbelievable! Your proof is in your leftist controlled socialist propaganda spewing media? Please, trite statements like this don't facilitate dialog well. What makes this even more amusing is the release of the E.U.'s report on rendition and secret prisons. Yes, they 'condemn' the practise, yet find no proof of any member states involvement in secret prisons. Idiots all. Of course the rendition 'travesty' is still on the table for nutters to foment over. If only they would spend as much time actually fighting the looming threat of Islamic Radicalism...

Finally, yes I have considered why they have turned to suicide bombings. Pure evil. Pure hatred. Pure culture of destruction. And we should fight it. Eradicate and crush it, exiled to a ignoble place in history with similar evil philosophies. We are not talking about throwing off the Kings rule here... This is fueled by a philosophy that does not value life, and intends to conquer with the blade. Of course all statements are in reference to Radical Islamist particularly, then the Arab Muslim community as a unconscious/conscious facilitator. In no way is the whole Islamic world implicated, yet at the same time, they tend to poll sympathetic with radical elements, and may find that the particular form of radicalism at this stage is beginning to infect otherwise peaceful communities. Many examples exist of this occurring, yet few examples exist of any large scale anti radical stance in the Muslim world. Ignorance is complicity.

Well, that concludes today's installment. I am still shocked at how far liberals have gone to thwart our great country, and it doesn't seem they are turning around...

Snotty Secular Religiosity

2007-01-09T11:55:00.000-10:00

Given the title, this line speaks for itself:

OK, so, are Catholics good Christians, as good a Christian as, say, you are?

What are you babbling about? There are a few standard accepted definitions of the label. If you mean Christian, as in those who proclaim allegiance to some church or hereditary cultural link, "good" has not much to do with it. Furthermore, under those circumstances, what I term "cultural Christianity", the topic is highly variable. If you mean Christian, as in one who professes Jesus as the Messiah personally, that is a different situation. Although, again "good" doesn't have much to do with it. Strange as it may seem, I have met many Catholics who have very little personal interest in the pursuit of Christ. I personally would not call them Christians under the second definition. Also, there is a common usage of the term for hereditary groups in many areas. By my take, you can not join a church or be born to a member of a church and be a Christian under the second label. You need to personally chose that regardless of blood or affiliation.

Now, when you use the term 'good', where do you get your gage? What do you constitute good or bad? Are we to decide who is good? And by what measure? I make no comparison amongst individuals in determining who is 'good' or 'bad'. If a individual through action harms another, you could call that bad. Since there is not a single individual living who has not done so (unless there is some child raised by gorillas that never contacted society...), everyone has done something bad, even 'good' Christians. Doesn't make any sense what your asking.

If you want to argue the comparative benefits of particular religions or sects, that is a different question. First, we need a measure. Is the measure the perceived benefit or harm to society? And as determined by whom? Or is the measure the intentions of God as related in accepted Scripture? Then we have another problem, because few take the time to actually read and investigate that goal. But, there are some very simple examples that do not require vast understanding. For instance, idolatry is obviously not what God indicates as a proper pursuit. So why do Catholics worship images of saints? Or another simple example. Take the Mormons. Later day saints. If Christ represented the culmination of the first dispensation, did God make a mistake and need to do it again? Absolute (moronic) lunacy. If one places any stock in the various principals represented in the texts, then the critical discretion inherent in those ideas and philosophies would prevent one from supporting a organization whose goal was in diametric opposition. Furthermore, if one rejects these text out of hand, which is fine, yet adheres to one of the religious institutions through what we can both agree is 'blind faith', I will still claim idiocy as the origins of most western religion stems from specific interpretations of the same text. In other words, as a individual, the proper course (as I perceive it) requires critical thinking when confronted with evidence that clearly shows error in the established institution. Otherwise you are a dupe.

Now, the vast majority of members in these institutions do not seem to be interested in such pursuits, and do exist in a 'cultural' framework. A community of support. Are we to denigrate the institution in such cases? I fully support Catholic charities. Many of our finest hospitals have their origins in the various churches. What is your scale to determine benefit or harm? Are you not playing as the divine ruler when you judge? In your case that divine ruler is man himself, and even greater travesty from some perspectives. Do you then believe in the 'goodness' of man? Or is your secular humanism really just a religion of self? Self satisfaction, self determination, and ultimately self preservation. Yet each of these goals ends in failure most ultimate for the atheist. That can't be considered as good now can it? And for the benefit of mankind, is the pursuit of self interest good?

The advancement of man is a very tricky thing. Is the perfect goal something quantifiable? First and foremost would be life. So does that mean as many people as possible should being able to live? Yet life is a serious struggle for some populations, how could they be happy? Is this good? Ah, but are we to decide who gets to live, who doesn't? Do we determine who is happy and satisfied? Do we represent all of man? What is the benefit of preventing or promoting life in such a way? It is of course impossible to do, yet many secular elitist make the attempt. The pursuit of the futile. There are many more specific examples, but the principal is quite clear. At some point, every individuals philosophy is based on a belief in the unprovable.

Here we reach a crossroad, where the benefit of mankind and the philosophies that rate that benefit meet. This meeting has existed in perpetual conflict throughout history. The philosophies changed names, yet the principal underlying the establishment of each philosophy is the same. At some point each much choose a measure, decide upon a course, without a real view of the outcome. This is where no argument can be convincing, for as the outcomes diverge, each path is the mist of the future. However, for the individual, the future is partially revealed.

Each man is given a life to live, and then death comes. Can death be conquered? Is there preservation available for the soul of man? Every person of intellect contemplates his mortality at some point. Each hears that question in the heart "Is there something missing?" For the Christian, pursuing that is the beginning of a fascinating journey. Part of that path is the concept of judging. One of the finest examples is Gods exhortation to enjoy the fruit of life, and to not be consumed with judging for oneself. To know what is ultimately 'good' and 'bad', and decide such shuts the door to experiencing life beyond the physical.

Now we return to what constitutes a 'good' Christian. That would be one who does not judge in such a way. So no 'good' Christian would call himself a good Christian. Likewise, what is the value in pointing out who is supposedly a 'bad' Christian? The worth of a individual can be seen in the appreciation of others, but this is not the measure of judgment. To go beyond this and determine who is good or bad based on what organizations they belong to is even more questionable. In this, criticism of said organizations is still perfectly viable. Equally appropriate is the ongoing cognizant critique of the philosophies adhered to by many groups.

Beyond War Planning, Parallels on Iraq and WWII

2007-01-05T15:58:00.000-10:00

Well we got a response to the last post pretty quickly. If you want more context for the following read the previous post. At times, it seems that comparison with history is useful, but are we making some of the same mistakes? Or is history being used off the cuff to support political philosophies? You be the judge. (NL is, of course, Nutter Liberal)

"Also noticed that there was no huge escalation in Iraq violence after Saddams resizing."

NL: Ah, you've only been watching the Fox White House Network again. The free press has documented a significant upturn in violence with several demonstrations showing thousands marching IN SUPPORT OF SADDAM. Why? Not because they thought him such a nice guy, the straw man you CCCRW's keep trying to raise as the ONLY alternative to hate hate hate, but because Saddam was Arab and Iraqi and of their branch of the faith. They saw how the US puppet government in the green zone treated him only an hour after WE fly him to his execution. Shame on America for staging such farce of law and justice. And don't say we didn't do it, we did....we occupy the country, we control the government, we call the shots.

Come on, you can do better. Significant upturn? Uh, a few thousand hold-outs in Sunni central jumping up and down is no upturn in violence. And I notice a consistent theme among you nutters, always blame the US. Doesn't matter what happens, just stick to that mantra. Free elections, a functioning court, trial that lasted months and had open media, then a sentence handed down by a sovereign government, yet you nutters deny all of it, don't seem to want it, and do your best to destroy whatever positive steps the Iraqis take. Nice to see you staying consistent when it come to the execution of a Stalinist dictator who easily murdered hundreds of thousands. Blame and shame. Yeah, that's patriotic, and right in line with the fever swamps denigration of America.

"The 'war' was brilliant and executed extremely quickly."

NL: ya boy, and this is the 1300 and what day after the celebration of Mission Accomplished? One battle don't make a war (ask George Washington or A. Lincoln.)

Your shooting yourself in the foot again on this. Notice the word "Mission"? Like as in one 'mission don't make a war', to misquote you. How do you want it? Is it a war against Islamofascism or not? If it is, then you should want us to do whatever it takes to kill as many in Iraq as we can, for a long time. But, if it is something else, as I suspect, then who are we at war with? Hmmm, some vague guys who won't hurt us for sure if we just leave Iraq. Naive and dangerous you peacenik nutters are.

"We nuked them."

NL: I want to be very very clear about this. YOU ARE ADVOCATING THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAQ AGAINST THE ENTIRE CIVILIAN POPULATION, to 'end' or 'win' a war WE started by lying to Congress, our people, the UN, and our allies. How low can you get? Whatever happened to Freedom and Democracy? Is this how you bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Who's next? Ya gunna nuke Iran next? Saudi Arabia? Syria? How to you spell War Criminal?

I didn't advocate anything. I restated history. And you're full of nutter imagination. The whole argument reconstructing the pre-war Iraq intelligence has been debunked a thousand times in many ways, I don't need to do it here. If you want to go after Bush, you have to take out Congress as well. My argument was clear in that you are propping up a historical war plan that DID NOT include using nuclear weapons. The same weapons that ended the war in a decisive manner.

NL: Now try and follow this. Our war planners, especially the Navy ones, envisioned a war against Japan from the 1920's onward. The Americans had NO plans to deal with Iraq. The war plan against Japan laid out a likely series of events (like the loss of the Philippines) and the island hopping strategy back across the Pacific to the doorstep of Japan; and that's how the war was played out, according to that plan. Again, when the US invaded Iraq there WAS NO PLAN. Then , in 1943 the US began to develop a post-war reconstruction plan for Japan and Germany; this is what MacArthur put into effect in 1945. Again, the US HAD NO POSTWAR PLAN of any kind for Iraq. So......the question is, what the hell is wrong with the US ability to do war plans these days. (Oh, I know, in the 1940's we thought things through, in 2002 we relied of God and prayer.......

No, we obviously had a superior battle plan as the traditional war did not last long. Don't fall into the ridiculous trap of believing the fever swamp echo chamber. So, lets compare any mission, any theater, that matches the Iraq situation. You can't get away with blanket cut and paste. Dishonest and inelegant. How about we compare the Battle of Tarawa? Or Okinawa? Wait, we lost a lot of troops in those battles, must have been some pretty bad planning as compared to Iraq, where in the whole endeavor we have lost less than half of the casualties endured just at Okinawa. Or is this not about fighting efficiency? Oh, it isn't. So, what is it about? Politics maybe, shortsighted political philosophies most likely. More specifically peacenik nutters who have lost their sanity in 2000 and now do whatever possible to destroy anything positive that comes from the current administration.

"...our enemies continued to fight until recognizing the complete destruction of their society."

NL: I think ur confused here. It was never an American policy to annihilate either Germany or Japan. Nor did we have a policy of destroying whole cities of innocent people. Germany and Japan have to be taken separately. In the German case, their military fought until absolutely defeated. Their government never made a decision to surrender to prevent the destruction of their society; indeed quite the opposite. Donitiz, succeeding to command after Hitler's suicide, kept fighting as long as he possibly could to allow people in the east to escape the Soviets and move west to surrender to the British and Americans. It was very selective, accept the destruction of the east and try to save the people and the west. And it worked. In fact, the destruction of WEST Germany was much less than is popularly supposed. The destruction of EAST Germany largely took place AFTER the Soviet occupation when everything possible was dismantled and moved to Russia. The destruction by air power of certain areas of cities had two aspects. In 1942-44 the aim was destruction of factories, gradually shifting to accepting destruction of WORKER housing near those factories. Late in 1944 and into 1945 there were selective area bombings (Cologne, Dresden, Berlin) whose aim was to collapse morale of the general population. But, the aim was never the annihilation of the population. Japan is a more complicated case, because racial elements come into play along with the stories of how they treated our POW's. Also, the Japanese choose to decentralize their manufacturing into small machine shops in civilian areas, both to make targeting harder as the B-29's came into force, and to reduce the movement and cost of a labor force having to go to and from work everyday. Again, our aim was the destruction of the manufacturing ability, demoralization of the workforce and, increasingly, the lowering of civilian morale and support for the war. The use of the atomic bomb is more complicated yet. At least four factors were at work. First, the cost of the war had become a real burden, we were having trouble raising money to pay for the war. Second, the American public was about at it's wits end with the high casualties in both the Pacific and in Europe. Third, an invasion of the home islands would have cost many many thousands of dead and Truman wanted to be re-elected. A big number of dead, even if it won the war, might have spelled the end of the Democratic Party's time in office! Fourth, and the hardest to get a grip on, was the Russian role. Russia had agreed than when the war was over in Europe, which it was in May 45, it would enter the war against Japan. The US didn't want Russia to have any say in the peace settlement in the Pacific, which Truman could not have avoided if Russia had time to become a really active member in the war. Say Russia helped invade Japan, they would want a zone of occupation there, and look what was already going on the the Soviet Zone in Germany! No thanks. Truman saw the use of the bomb as a way to cut the Russians out by getting a quick end to the war. Also, FDR and Truman had spend billions developing the bomb. Questions would be raised at the next election about those costs if we didn't use it, so, ok, we'll use it. History tends to be complicated that way....

This WW2 parallel is silly. Remember, Japan attacked US, Germany declared war on US, in Iraq WE lied about the whole process and everybody knows that now. Nuthing like the same situation. We aren't fighting for Freedom and Democracy in Iraq, we arn't fighting to Liberate oppressed people from an occupying power, WE ARE the occupying power! The US rational for the war has changed several times, each one a lie, one after another.

Well, history can be complicated, yet surprisingly simple. The trappings and details can create a rich picture, yet the central theme of my argument is still sound. We were willing to use all the force at our disposal to win. When our actions communicated that to our foe, they surrendered. I did not say we executed our war plan with the intention of completely destroying either Japan or Germany, just that we went about it with the purpose of convincing them that we could do so. In Germany, you have more competing interests, yet once Hitler offed himself, there was little will to fight. There was a pretty strong drive for many to surrender to the western forces as you state. Another story of course, but the Russians apparently communicated their desire to annihilate more effectively? Irregardless, my tenet is sound, we won decisively because we crushed the will of our opponents. The strategic move of your leaders to cut and run now is a move designed to embolden our foes, in opposition to the examples above.

"If the planners were so smart, they would have advised a pre-emptive buildup of the military and scrapping of the Versailles treaty."

NL: Again, this is more complex than you make out. Combine the Bushido military code, the Shinto religion, an aggressive military (since 1905), the rise of a Japanese nationalist spirit, the industrialization of the county, the need for more resources to feed that industry, and a resentment against white colonial powers (esp in China, SE Asia and the Philippines)and you got a problem. They wanted their 'place in the sun' and the West didn't like that (Hong Kong, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya, Cochin (French) Indochina etc etc.) As to 'fanatical', well, compared to hardcore National Socialists in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Saladins Muslims, the Ottomans, the Crusades and a bunch of others, their right up there but not head and shoulders above everybody. A bit 'over dedicated' you might say. Gee, remember Churchill's statement about fighting on the beaches, fighting in the streets, fighting in the hills, etc etc.... Maybe it ain't so different really.

You might ask, why is a whole generation (well, several generations really, beginning a long time ago in some places, how about the original Muhammad and his adventures, how about the Mehdi army against Gen. Gordon at Kartoom in the Sudan, or the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920's....there are many examples. Anyhow, consider that a lot of Muslims might well have valid grievances against those who have exploited them. The British, for example, in Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, Saudi and Palestine.....its a fairly long list. Perhaps some consideration ought to be given to redressing those problems.....think about Saudi Arabia for example. A pro-west government is set up by outsiders supporting the Saud family so that they can get cheap and easy access to SAUDI oil....it ain't BRITISH oil....as somebody said, how the hell did OUR oil get in THEIR sand! Maybe we should have spent the last 60 odd years, after WW2, working on policies that would not have inflamed anti-western sentiments, that would have helped develop their resources to their AND our benefit. Instead, Western Europe and the US have supported semi-westernized dictatorships in a long list of countries solely for the purpose of getting quick and cheap access to their natural resources, with little eye, thought, or concern about the long-term impact of such a policy. Since the middle 50's we have been paying the price for that policy and seem to have learned little. Every time the VICTIMS of our policies express discontent WE BLAME THEM instead of asking why they might be unhappy after more than a century of exploitation.......strange indeed. And then we wonder why they reject western ways and their western trained dictators and embrace radial Islam?

And nobody I know of is recommending that we 'go hide in the sand'. That's just another straw man you CCCRW's keep raising. The old, "You gotta do it my way because the ONLY OTHER WAY is to do nothing". Well, doing nothing ISN'T the only other option. We have lots of choices, but if you keep the straw man fight going we're never going to see those options or use those options. What we LIBERALS (more accurately we Internationalists) are advocating is that we look for a better policy because the current non-policy clearly is not working.

Here is your fallacy again. Your policy that is out there somewhere (you know, the one that is clearly 'smarter' or 'more sophisticated') has never materialized. The only policy you can come up with is to stab America in the back internally and hope for your political stars to rise again. Great policy that. Seems to be adhered to consistently by your ilk too. As to the current policy, there certainly can be improvements. But in its goal, nothing better has been proposed. That overall is what will vex you nutters the most. You advocate loss and defeat. Yet if asked would you like to see a stable Iraq democracy, you can't say no. Which tells me the debate is predominantly about political power, not National interest.

Additionally, you revert in argument to historical policies and their apparent creation of vast victims. That is a classic liberal mindset. One that speaks volumes of how your philosophy views the world. The only fair thing is apparently that which you deem fair. Yet these countries have all had sovereign powers, and acted on the world stage according to those rules and conventions that I assume you support. Unless it is now illegal to have a kingdom, or other form of government. And you call it exploitation, because you don't like the origin or alliances of a particular government. Talk about a draconian view! You 'Internationalists' just want to rule the whole world your way it seems.

"...Roosevelt caused Pearl Harbor."

NL: You are terribly confused. FDR didn't 'cause' Pearl Harbor, stop being silly. Question: Why is giving nuclear technology to India OK, but letting Iran have it is bad bad bad? What's the POLICY here? Why? as in How come?

And, what's this got to do with 15 Saudis flying airplanes into the WTC as members of a Saudi controlled and funded terrorist organization??? I don't remember any Iraqis or Iranians being involved in the Sept 11 in any way, shape or form. Have you truly gone nuts?

Please. Use your brain when reading. Of course FDR didn't cause Pearl Harbor, but there are real crazies who believe it. Just like there is a double digit percentage of moonbat nutters in your camp who seriously believe Bush knew about 9/11. Now to answer your question, India is a ally, Iran is not. Duh. But, if you want to complain about policy, show me how the UN has prevented nuclear proliferation. Oh, wait, we are sooo bad, its all our fault that more countries now have the bomb. So predictable.

Have I gone nuts? Your Saudis trained in Afghanistan, with the blessing of that illegitimate government. The Saudi government does not officially support the Islamofascists or their goals. The Iranians clearly are funding terrorists, and intentionally attempting to sway the free people of Iraq. The previous Iraqi governments intentions were clear, and they were not interested in becoming buddies. Here is where you nutters are beyond the pale. Unable to see the reality, and unwilling to support your own country. It has its roots in a guilt complex I guess. Couple that with hate and you have a cancer that will plague America for decades.

Quick Thoughts on War Planning

2007-01-05T12:16:00.000-10:00

I responded to snide little comments today, and it was refreshing:

Your reaching a fever swamp pitch I see. Hope your Bush hate yeilds something benifitial someday... (Though that is impossible, any real liberal knows love is the answer!) As far as the approval rating goes, you're in outer space. Hasn't really changed much over the last year, hovering in the high thirties. Much higher than Congresses approval rating.

Bush Approval Ratings

But, thats irrelevant. Who cares about his approval rating now? Is he up for election? So, dems gonna defund the military? Also noticed that there was no huge escalation in Iraq violence after Saddams resizing. Wonder if the Bathists are loosing heart. You know, one thing the Iraq war planners may not have accounted for was the 100,000 criminals Saddam released just before the war. But, that wont be much of a problem soon. Transition continues, virtually ignored by libs. As to your juvenile relationship between historical war planning and the Iraq war, I scof. The 'war' was briliant and executed extreemely quickly. But if you want to make a comparison concerning the real parallel, lets do it! How did we beat the Japanese? They were fanatical, loyal to death. Fighting harder than any Islamofacist yet seen by us. Estimated losses in taking the Japanese homeland were staggering. We firebombed them, starved them and they still threw everything they could at us. So what happened? We nuked them. Civilian populations erased in one fell swoop. Showed them overwhelming force, and the will to use it.

You think your precious little war planners had that in mind? Completely asinine comparison. However, you are onto something. A plan to win includes displaying to your enemy that you will be willing to anihilate them. It is the infecting concepts of 'never again' and 'the end of all war' that guarentee another conflict even greater than before. We were willing to destroy whole cities of 'inocent' people in WWII, and our enemies continued to fight until recognizing the complete destruction of thier society. With the media of today, the will to fight that war would have been removed by peacenik 'propaganda' even before Midway. By the time of Guadacanal, the losses and images would have stabbed us in the heart.

Why were the Japanese so fanatical? They believed the Emporor was a divine representative. They were Shintofascist. Young men in droves threw away thier lives, and didn't stop until the divine leader gave up. The proverbial cutting off the head of the snake. What do you think it will take before we recognize the same thing in the Islamofascists? Because right now throughout the middle east, a whole generation is being raised with the same type of twisted idealism that the Japanese had. You think they care at all about diplomacy? Not likely. And what is a reasonable respnse to the rise of such a threat? Go hide in the sand and suck you thumb as you peaceniks desire? The longer you wait, the stronger your opponent becomes, just as in WWII. If the planners were so smart, they would have advised a pre-emptive buildup of the military and scrapping of the Versaille treaty.

Enter todays beautiful quote:

"Today, we have produced more than 250 tons of UF-6. Should you visit Isfahan, you will see we have constructed tunnels that are almost unique in the world," State-run television quoted Aghazadeh as saying.

Sure, its just another boisterous outburst from those frendly peace loving Iranians. Fortunately, our media is deaf dumb and blind to such threats, so we can wallow in ignorance a bit longer. Asisted of course by Bush hating peacenik nutters who lap up the self mollifying guilt fest daily. Its as if 9/11 never happened for them. And if it is im memory, its tagged with something along the lines of "Bush did it." Just like Rosevelt caused Pearl Harbor.

A Personal Exploration of Service with Views on Iraq

2006-12-22T14:02:00.000-10:00

Well, this is going to be a lengthy section, hopefully with some cumulative value. At the conclusion I will discuss perceptions and military service in a personal way. Including some colorful history of my youth, for better or worse. Take it with a grain of salt, as my teen years were not full of exemplary character development. It begins with number one piece of mail from my esteemed sparring partner.

The Prez wants guys to volunteer for the Army!! Says he needs 20,000, or maybe 25,000, or was it 35,000..... well, some folks are saying 70,000 more troops to get 'Victory' in Iraq. I'll help get the USS Missouri ready for the surrender ceremony and YOU can rush right down and join the Marines! Hell, I mean, they're taking guys clear up to age 42.... I mean, gee, don't you want to fight for your country??? Red-blooded, patriotic, god-fearing guys ready to DIE for America? or or maybe just a disabling wound perhaps.....an arm or leg....though head wounds seem more popular these days.... Maybe those who vote for war should have to go and fight it?

My response was mild as it is the Christmas Season of love and happiness.

I would love to serve in some capacity, yet they don't want oceanographers right now.... If Al Qaida gets a few submarines, maybe the navy's blue water budget will increase... However, I think we have a all volunteer force right now, and recruiting seems to be going well. I notice that our armed forces are better educated than the average American, and come from households of higher than average income.

Heritage Foundation Report on the Military

Gee, what happened there? I thought only idiots and the poor joined up, according to you leftists.

Who are you so desperate to surrender too? Idiotic. Did you know that we were taking the heaviest casualties in WW2 at the end? Your peacenik philosophy wouldn't have even gotten us to '44, let alone success. I bet the press of today transplanted to that generation would have sluffed off Pearl Harbor by '44 and ran around calling for peace "...'cause we will never take the Japanese mainland and too many people have died." In fact, they probably would have figured out that we really already lost the war completely by the Battle of Midway. As it stands in this day and age, they have confused dissent with disloyalty, leading to a Anti-American mindset. Stupid and self destructive.

As to serving, it would be great. I know doctors who have gone in, and gotten pretty good deals, loans payed off, competing pay grades. But I would literally have to declare bankruptcy if I joined the Marines! It would be fun to be a analyst as well, but I haven't any of the languages or politics in my CV. So that leaves DOD stuff, which may happen anyhow, but it isn't exactly combat. Later on, if given the opportunity, I could teach at Monterrey (NPGS), that would be interesting. But again, they aren't very interested in blue water science right now. The real threat is all in coastal stuff. Now, if the Chinese keep growing, maybe they could field some boomers, then the money will come back. Anyhow, if we were in dire straights I wouldn't have any problem hitching up, but I don't think the situation is as reported by your ilk. And to continually harp on those who "voted for the war", is just a sign of your sides failure to provide any solutions at all. Total ignorance. Total politics. Total BS.

Ok, so maybe it was slightly provocative, but you must admit, very low on the 'inflamimeter' (a device yet to be invented). Reading my response again now, I do sense a bit of duckedness in the explanation of why I am not running down to the recruiter, but they have other standards besides those stated. Things like age and fitness... Anyhow, here is the next bit in the saga:

A most amazing response!
I can see the lads at Lexington and Concord: 'Well, offer me a good deal. The GI bill, pay off my loans, give me a commission" How about, I'm here to defend Liberty and Freedom! You want a reward to defend your country?! You sound like a corporation that wants war time profits! If you REALLY believe in the war against Iraq, then join up and FIGHT! Become a rifleman in a USMC platoon. Get out on the front line and take the risks along with the rest of the guys. If, on the other hand, all this is baloney; the cause just doesn't mean that much; you're willing to let 'someone else' do the fighting, bleeding and dieing, well, that's a different story ain't it. Thomas Paine was right, The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this time of crisis shirk from the service of his county....

Ah, the accusation of surrender. Thought we had settled that yesterday with the Edward R. Murrow quote. You people always equate dissent with disloyalty and disagreement with surrender. It ain't so. I argue that the dissenters, as we were in Vietnam, the truer patriots because we are trying to save our country from making a huge mistake. We were LIED to about Iraq. No WMD's, no threats, no connection to September 11, and no terrorists (until WE bought them there). But George and Dick keep trying to make the link that isn't there. So, why ARE we in Iraq? The answer to that has changed several times over the past four years. George just keeps making things up as he goes along, lie after lie after lie. You people will have to face the facts at some point; 80% of the rest of us already have. There is NO reason to be in Iraq. George and his cronies lied to us and created a monstrous mess, and every day and everything he does just makes it worse. This is not a glorious cause leading us to victory over those who have attacked us. It is a lie. From beginning to end, a lie. Saddam had no WMD's, was not a threat, had no nuclear weapons program, was not making chemicals or biological weapons, did not sponsor 9/11, did not train terrorists etc etc etc. We still don't REALLY KNOW why George lead us into this war, but we do know that it has nothing to do with 'terrorism'. The war on terror, such as that is, is being lost in Afghanistan and across the world because the US is not meaningfully engaged in it.

And, you don't have to worry about how I'm reporting the war. Read the Commission report, authored by Republicans. Read the briefings from the Pentagon, authored by the generals that are there! Take a look at the actual events that are taking place in Iraq; what's the trend in civilian deaths? What's the trend in US military dead and wounded? What's the trend in security and public safety? What are the Iraq people themselves doing? (Those who can are fleeing) I don't see ANY signs of improvement in the country. The Army and Police are militias of the various sides, the politicians are corrupt and the money we send is wasted.

Now, about solutions. First, of course, it's up to those who are actually pursuing the war to come up with alternatives to a failed policy. As George keeps saying, he's 'the decider', or, more to the point, the commander-in-chief. Second, those people WERE warned that their policy would not work. And it didn't. Third, as the reception of the Study Group shows, George WILL NOT listen to any alternative policy. All he can comprehend is Stay the Course, and Victory. That just digs us in deeper. And he keeps offering up the 'lie of the week'. Fourth, alternative polices have been offered. Listen to Biden, Powell, the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, the Commission and on and on.

I'm afraid that the end, which will come before summer is out, is most likely to be a Stalingrad on the Tigris. We'll put in tens of thousands of troops into the urban area, who will stumble all over each other and accomplish nothing except providing more targets, because there is NO PLAN. Then the tipping point will be reached when the Iraqi government collapses into a failed state. Our supply lines are cut. The airport is under constant rocket and mortar attack. And provisions begin to run low. Tens of thousands of Iraqis begin to overrun the Green Zone. In such close quarters air power is useless. An American Stalingrad. Panic ensues. Defeat looms.

Well, that was fascinating. The "American Stalingrad"? What a amazing world peaceniks live in. So deep in the fertile imagination, so shallow in reality. I digress for a moment, so back to the beginning. First we must squash this idiotic notion about personally fighting a war you support. What ignorant emotional swamp gas. I will quote again, "If you REALLY believe in the war against Iraq, then join up and FIGHT!" Huh? This is a nation we are discussing, not a feudal state. I can fully support the war, fully support the politicians who will decide on fighting a enemy that threatens some of the foundations of our Republic. I have the freedom in this country to pursue virtually any law abiding lifestyle I want, thanks to many amazing giants of men who went before, some sacrificing everything so that I have that opportunity. If the country were to engage in a critical fight where the number of men in the military was a question, I would gladly join if I could be of use. If they instituted a draft, and I were eligible, I would again join before being drafted, even if the fight was not one that I personally felt worthy.

This attitude is something I arrived at in my twenties. If in my teens I would have had the same attitude, I would have certainly joined the military. But, during some of my formative years, I had a far different view of the military. In my household was very strong 60's antiwar sentiment, and some disdainful attitudes towards the commander and chief Ronald Regan. In turn, I was impressed with a similar disdain, yet unestablished by my own critical thinking. This brings me to a seminal moment which some may find entertaining.

Though my attitude toward the military at the time was quite cynical due to parental influence, it was also one of fascination with military history from the same influence. This is not unexpected for many liberals, who seem to disconnect the present history from glorification of the past. Clearly a function of Vietnam's influence, whether justified or not. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind was a growing concern that the past and present were not dissimilar, yet my maturity in placing the present in context was minimal. I was a self centered, emotionally and intellectually isolated individual. Yet there was within that a spark of interest in military service, a spark dimmed by the lack of compulsion or personal conviction.

At that time it was compulsory in my high school to participate in the ASVAB, which I did. My scores were not unexpectedly off the chart, except in one category. I scored a 86 on the clerical section of the exam. Unaware at the time that my ADHD probably hindered my performance in that section. In fact, I didn't even know there was a clerical component, and found it frustratingly amusing. Needless to say, recruiters were quite interested in discussing my future (albeit not as a desk clerk...). I accepted a invitation from the naval recruiters on a whim and went to visit. I remember my heart at the time was bitter. I had much hidden resentment and spite, which was looking for a outlet.

At this meeting I quickly narrowed down the possibilities to one thing I actually had desired in dreams of the future. Aviation had been in my families history from WWII, and I figured that would be exciting to explore. But, I have very poor eyesight... Its completely corrected by contacts or glasses, yet far outside a acceptable range for military aviation. No pilot for me, no copilot, no hands on the controls... No excitement for my teen self. So I got what I wanted, self pity and broken dreams. Then the unconscious plan floated to the surface, the plan of ensuring failure to insulate myself from not living up to or even attempting to meet high expectations (a common theme in my early days). I steered the question rapidly towards the 80's recruiting guidelines on prior drug use. Of course I had already done my homework, so you could say it was 'lock and load' time.

A prospect during this period could easily and knowingly 'lie' on the record when signing up. It was a unwritten guideline for recruiters to explain to their young eager plebes that 'no' could mean 'I don't recall at this time', or some such thing. They wanted real honesty in the verbal interview so as to gage a bit of your character, but for the record it needed to be clean. Tough sell in the town I grew up in as drug and alcohol abuse was pretty rampant. Yet for me it was more than special. I had a few questions for them about the policy. The result was quite interesting. If you had 'inhaled', maybe a few times, they were still very interested in pursuing you, yet pulled a bit of the stern 'your lucky for this opportunity' shtick. But when it came to other drug usage, the unwritten guideline obviously became null, because when I informed them about the level of my explorations with D-lysergic acid diethylamide (multiple trials over a period of years), they immediately lost the spark in their eyes. At the time I counted it a great coup d'etat, but in retrospect, it was another great opportunity that I had not the guts or discipline to recognize.

If I had enlisted, I would have still been in at the start of the Gulf War. A couple of decades can sure put things in strange light. This brings us back to the topic of the current conflict. What is a reasonable estimate of how long we will be fighting Islamofascists? Twenty years? Forty? What constitutes this crisis today? Is the military in a recruitment crisis? No. Are we currently engaged in heavy combat? No. Should patriotically minded men in the desirable age group 18-25 consider military service? Certainly, I would in such circumstance. Single and 18 would be a no brainer. Married and 25, you could both consider it a noble sacrifice. Easy to make that choice. Yet either one can be just as patriotic in pursuing other interests. There is no crunch for volunteers at this time.

Ignorant critics disdain those who do not agree with their political position, and impugn the personal choices of political opponents. This is just a lack of civility and character. The same people will give any pass to members of their own persuasion without flinching, clearly exposing the guttural partisan nature of the attacks. For instance in the above letter concerning personal service for a cause individually supported, there is a doubling back to denigrate the cause itself, as if anyone who supports the war actions of their government should make all effort to do so personaly in a military manner, and if the individual is not willing to do so, the cause is clearly not worth it. What elite tripe. It's the lowest form of persuasion, and supremely ineffective.

Far more odious is the use of a great Patriot like Paine to impugn the motives of those who do support Americas military, both its members and its mission. How short sighted to not make the real comparison between the contexts of the American Revolution and the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq. I can quote Paine a bit as well, just a few lines from his exhortation to support the Revolutionary Army, "Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered..." Contemplate with that in mind, whether this brilliant man would be in support of our effort in Iraq at this time. Do we need more convincing? Ok, how about "Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Are you kidding me? Looks like he was a God fearing Christian man as well. Clearly a Bush supporter!

This pretty well negates the simian argument against being in Iraq. If freedom is of the most noble efforts, who needs WMD? I jest in part, but scoff at the fever swamp who can not see the any threat that does not serve their political purpose. Furthermore, I reject the insolent leftist poll quoters who will not ask the simple question, "Do you want Iraq to be a free, successful democracy?" In similar fashion, the reporting falls in step. No objective analysis paints a rosy picture, yet that same picture is very far from defeat. Certainly things could become much worse, yet even in that we would be ahead in the strategic picture. No where near the defeatist collapse eagerly hoped for by peacenik leftists.

That collapse is the solution for the left. The illicit thrill hoped for, like a necrophiliac visiting the morgue, the left excites at the prospect of defeat for Bush. "Cut and run, screw the Iraqis, bless the little pointy heads of the Islamofascist supporters of the Democratic party." What a mantra. No matter what the outcome, history will not be kind to the nutters. American Stalingrad indeed. More vile NAZI metaphor from the party of peace. What will it take for the scales to fall?

Liberal Sentimentality Twists in the Wind

2006-12-20T10:41:00.000-10:00

I blasted off a little tidbit concerning the concept and actions surrounding 'negotiations' with Syria:

--------------------
Oh boy! Real progress being made for sure by your traitorous buffoon Nelson. Backstabbing Democrats, sucking our country into the pit of despair. Anyhow, even the state run Syrian media don't like him. What an idiot.

Syria Responds to Senator

I love this quote though:

It said it was strange that some U.S. senators who visited Syria were very "gentle, diplomatic and attentive" while in Syria but immediately after they leave Damascus "they turn upside down and start making up stories and tales that exist only in their fertile imagination."

Well, Hells Bells, what did they expect? It is a Liberal Democrat, betraying his own country, not some honorable spokesperson. I mean, par for the course right? Standard Dem operating procedure... Love that fertile imagination!
--------------------

What did I receive for my efforts? A emotional appeal, a patriotic piece of prose, at first. Well its interesting at the end, and the appeal to convince based on sentimentality was crafted nicely. However, it seems the tables are upturned, you be the judge:

--------------------
Yesterday I took a tour of the nation's Capitol, the Old Supreme Court Chamber, where Dred Scott was argued, the Old House Chamber, where Webster uttered 'Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!', where John Quincy Adams, the only President who entered the House AFTER being President, so outraged the slave south by presenting, time and time again, petitions for the abolition of slavery that he was ejected (and then re-elected by Mass.), where Lincoln sat and learned the ropes of representative government. The into the Senate Chamber. Who can count the glorious and wonderful events of that chamber? And the Rotunda, where Presidents have laid In State since Jefferson.

This is a Republic, by God it is! As close to a Democracy as the will and minds and laws of Man can make
it.

And I expect that, as my great-grandfather John Slocum did at Gettysburg, I, and my children, and my grand-children and every generation to come will fight to the death to defend it. All of it. And all of us. Every word of the Constitution is a hard fought bargain struck between ourselves and those who have gone before. In elections, in the courts, on the battlefield and around every dining room table in America.

The quote below, from Edward R. Murrow, was directed at Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, member of earlier group of those who have, from time to time, put self-aggrandizement and party above the interests of the Nation. It applies, even more forcefully, to the Bush Administration of today, which willfully and spitefully refuses to change direction despite all evidence, the opinions of the vast majority of the American public, their own Generals in the field, and increasingly, their own party. They are so desperate to hang onto the trappings of power that they are willing to sacrifice our soldiers, our treasure, our national prestige and our essential Constitutional protections.

Edward R. Murrow said: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular..."

You ought to remember that YOU are descended from a member of the most distinguished group of men in the history of the world; the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.
--------------------

What I remember is that these men fought a revolution against the strongest military of the day based on their conviction of freedom. They won. In the face of complete defeat, with great loss, they stayed the course. My first beef with your analogy is the lack of honesty concerning the actual state of Middle East conflict. "Despite all evidence" and "vast majority" are completely wrong. You would wish that this were the case, and your friends in the liberal establishment media will try their best to make it so, but objectivity is not one of your tools. Oh, before that, if anyone has put self-aggrandizement and party above our Nation its your simian Liberal Democratic Leadership.

Nice tape released today from Al Zawaheri, claiming that Democrats should be meeting with him to organize Americas withdraw. Ah, another sign of how your party is really perceived in the world, traitors! If your perception of the terrorist pigs was correct, wouldn't they be supporting any republican? I mean, if American troops in Iraq are really creating more terrorist, doesn't that help their cause? But no, they want us out. Why? Could you figure this one out?

As for Ed and the quote, what is the unpopular cause? Is not freedom in Iraq become the unpopular cause? Has not the mainstream liberal media been living in fear for the last six years? Fear and hate have driven liberals to actually confuse dissent and disloyalty. They have become disloyal, and end up walking in fear of their fellow countrymen. Fear has driven reason out of the liberal mind, emotion rules the direction of liberal thought.

From Johnson to Iraq, the Real Commentary!

2006-12-14T16:36:00.000-10:00

Best wishes and speedy recovery to Sen. Johnson. Now to the frivolous banter! The folowing piece of mail was entitled "neat", oh boy!

Well, looks like both Bush and McCain have fallen into the trap. Apparently Bush is going to take McCain's suggestion and send an additional 35,000 troops to Iraq. They can do this for a few months by overlapping the tours of duty; starting the incoming troops a few months before the outgoing troops leave.

In other words, the idiots have decided to take sides in a civil war! The 'terrorists' in Iraq must be popping champagne corks over this one! It's like General Terry sending more help to Custer......all it does is give the enemy more targets to kill.

On another subject.... If the Senator from S.D. dies or can't serve, the Gov. of S.D., a Republican, appoints someone to the office until the next general election in 2008. Question: Will the Governor do the honorable thing and name someone of the same political party, a Democrat, or will he do the crass political thing, and name a Republican? Wanna make a guess?!

My irreverent reply with the chop comments
Honor? Please, liberals don't know the meaning of the word. He will do the honorable thing all right and appoint himself. But don't expect it to happen.

NL: This is a most interesting reaction on your part. It certainly makes working together in Congress a bit difficult don't you think? But, the position of Rove and Nordquist for the past 12 years has been that they don't need the D's, we got the votes. They thought that they were headed for a permanent R majority; that the neocon victory was forever. But, as the R's are about to find out, no victory is forever. Majorities change to minorities. And, believe it or not, in domestic, as in internation politics, you do have to work with and talk to your political opponents. The real world does have a way of intruding. If positions were reversed I would expect a D Gov to say, well, u won the seat, your entitled to have an R fill it for the next two years to a general election, and name an R to the seat. That's the way honorable men and women work. Alas, we seem to be past that, and politics is not the business of governing but the business of simply winning.

I have a question though. What becomes of the vote for leader? No way Johnson gives up his seat willingly, yet if he is incapacitated, no vote. So, the majority has not enough votes.....

NL: Well, as the SD state web site notes, this has happened before in SD. Karl Mundt (I have a picture from about 1962 of my mother and I in Mundt's office in DC with his arms around both of us. Look him up and see what his politics were.....) lingered for a long long time and the Gov didn't appoint anybody. The seat was not empty, legally. So, nobody could vote in his name even though the D's would technically still hold the majority, as there would be 50 D's and 49 R's, this being a rare case where loosing a seat, so to speak, does not automatically mean the gain of a seat for the opposition. The purpose would be to keep that majority and hence the chairmenships etc.

Love your boy Harry, "He really looks good..." Yeah, I just had brain surgery, doctors questionable if I will even live, but I look "marvelous"... Love it! Your boys a complete piece of work... Reminds me of when what's her name (congresses woman something or other) out here went in to the hospital. The hardcore dems claimed the family's privacy, and we never knew about her condition until she died two months later. Of course that was well past the time anyone could mount a campaign... Imagine those Honorable Dems doing such a thing! How about your Honorable Harry!

NL: Don't recall who your talking about. Somebody in Oregon? Anyway, there is no way to declare the seat vacant short of death or resignation.

I notice something though. One lib has done the honorable thing. Yes, uber lib judge actually upholds congress and the Pres! Bye bye Hamdan! Hahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha hahahahahhhaaa! I even give it to you at your favorite source:

Rare Carlos link to the Old Grey Hag

At least one lib has some honor...

NL: Judge Robertson is an interesting case. He resigned from the FISCourt without comment. He applied the statute and that was that. The next step, of course, is to appeal not the statute but the constitutional issue of hab. corp. to the Supreme Court and get a ruling there. Personally, I would argue that anybody who comes under the control of the US government also picks up the protections relating to due process, Hab Corp, speedy trial, right to confront witnesses and presentation of evidence, etc etc. The Constitution should cover and protect anybody who comes within its grasp. If you come under the penalties you should also come under the protections. Bush wants to avoid the usual criminal courts only because he knows he could not win a conviction there, in part based on the use of torture and in part because he knows that none of the cases would stand up to evidencery standards.

As for your celebration crap. You live in a vacuum. When did the terrorist actually celebrate recently? Yes, when Dems regained control. Why? Because they figured that meant they were winning and we would leave. You're in outer space. There is the real world, and then there is the nutters imaginary world. Even the liberal nutter MSM drive by press commented on the cheering by Americas enemy at the election result. They don't cheer when we send more troops... Wanna guess why?

NL: Can't say as I recall any 'celebrations'. Exactly what are you referring to? I would think they are celebrating now because the US is going to continue, at least for two more years, the same policies that will continue to drain the national treasure, get Americans killed, turn people the world over against the US, and produce the chaos that the insurgents and terrorists thrive in. If the Bushites and McCain actually do sent another 35,000 troops without a substantive change in how those troops are used, then the situation will only get worse. If the troops are used to provide security while construction takes place, if they are used to secure areas on a long term basis rather than search and clear and then leave, if they are embedded and work with carefully vetted units of the police and army who are loyal to a unified Iraq government, then they might accomplish something. But. I don't see any evidence that that is the plan, or could even be done at this point. I suspect we are far beyond that point. That should have been the immediate plan after defeating Saddam's army, and at some point the situation deteriorates beyond repair. It doesn't sound to me like there is anything to the Bushite plan other than more troops, without the necessary political settlement that has to occur. That being the case, the strategy (or non-strategy) will fail in a very few months, Iraq will collapse, the Saudis will come in from the west and the Iranians from the east and the Americans will try and retreat out in haste, disorder, dishonor and disaster just as they did in Vietnam, and will blame the Iraqis for their failure, just as they blamed the Vietnamese. Sic transit gloria.

End of Transmission

My comments on the discussion are brief. First, conservatives have never held a majority in the Senate. In fact you could argue we held the house for a few years, and two terms of the presidency ('80 and '84). So a definite majority is still out there for us. Bush and the current crop of Republicans had some success, and finally gained control, but they aren't very conservative. At least the president is movable on a few of the most important issues. But, unfettered spending, ridiculous border enforcement, refusal to stand up and lead against liberal inanity.... these transgressions are difficult to stomache.

Second, the constitution should cover any person who is a citizen of this country first and foremost. Then alien residents, tourist, on down to diplomats (scum of the earth). Illegal immigrants have broken our laws, and should be covered as well, i.e. deported. Then those of other status would fall under the many treaties we are signatories of, under Constitutional authority. Hence we can Constitutionally execute irregular enemy combatants at will in a time of war. To determine wether a individual falls into that category, we have nicely provided for them a fair and judicious method via military tribunals. Case closed except for whining liberal idiots who hate Bush first and foremost, and then the military, so the issue is ripe for much gnashing and grinding of teeth.

Finally, anyone who missed how pleased Ahmadinejad was at the election results is a buffoon. Congratulations flowed in from many a corner in the world of Islamofascism, and to ignore it leaves ones head deep in the sand. In fact you could say the Democratic party was definitely the representatives of choice for Islamofascists. Then to assume that what the terrorists thugs want is more of our best and brightest speaks to a arrogance coupled with blindness concerning the nature of the battle we face. However, a scenario of true civil war is always a possibility. Every country has civil unrest looming in the background, even first world monocultures like Japan. When you consider the socioeconomic forces in modern Iraq, the possibility of a religious war is always near. It was less than two decades previous that the same area saw much conflict. The goal of each player is to gain as large a supporting population base as possible, and then in the case of the Islamic nutters, expand as necessary until all are subdued. The Kurds aren't giving anything up, and we are currently building a very nice facility in the Kurdish 'state' that I am sure will be welcome to the US for many moons. The Sunni triangle is a loss, but the expectations before the war probably weren't to high. Sadly, after making a stand in Fallujah and other areas, we turned it back over to weak Iraq control.

It can be expected that the population in those areas resent American security. They suffered the least under Saddam, and lost the most when he fell. The crux of this current situation revolves around how much control of Iraqi Shiites can Iran get before the Iraq police forces become stable. That could take a decade. Yet to allow the region to dissolve into more conflict would be detrimental to US security. We are fighting a war initiated by Islamofascist nutters, and though the battlefield has changed, the commonality in purpose of the enemy has not. Saddam wanted to expand his control in a Stalinist fashion, yet irritated to many neighbors. Think of his playbook though, lob missiles into Israel continuously while looting a fat prize Kuwait. What were the missiles for? Arab political cover. Anyone who lobs missiles into Israel is a true Arab hero. What does Iran do in the modern day? Hezbollah as a proxy lobs missiles into Israel. Iran is a valiant warrior of the people. Al the while infiltrating Iraq and attempting a nuclear arsenal.

We will be seeing a greater conflict soon, whether we want it or not. And we can fuddle duddy around with inane attempts at pathetic diplomacy, or prepare for serious conflict. Talking all day long will postpone, no will give those who are relatively weak time to strengthen themselves. Has Hezbollah disarmed yet? Or perhaps have they resupplied themselves? Will Iran attain a nuclear device? Or is it when? A key in both of these questions is Iraq. If Iraq is a complete mess, there will be even greater pressure. If Iraq strengthens itself, the chance of Iran and Syria further supporting terrorist activities diminishes.

All of these points seem clear and self evident to me, yet why such ignorance on the part of socialist liberals in America? To let emotion control your behavior is a sure sign of eventual defeat. And the leftists are filled with rage, hate, and anger in this country. What will satisfy them? What will appease them? Or do they need to be marginalized and eliminated... Americas greatest threat right now seems to be from within, a potent cancer of the heart. Liberal socialism, the permanently disaffected. May we be given a great light to shine upon them.

More Traitors in the Senate?

2006-12-14T16:30:00.000-10:00

Ah, can you believe the wonder of liberal nutters? Have a taste...

The Senate may actually be trying to conduct foreign policy! Why, why, the nerve of those people, taking their constitutional duties seriously! I mean, how dare then go around a President and Secretary of State that only know obstruction and war rather than negotiation and peace. Next thing you know one of them will want to go to North Korea. Which ain't such a bad idea.....

Uh, you mean undermine our foreign policy. Put your glasses on. So now its a 'constitutional duty' to negotiate with terrorist supporting nations? Oh, and it works so well too. I'm sure Assad will be all accommodating. I'm sure he will stop aiding Hezbollah right away. And the border with Iraq, yep, patroled night and day. Hey, lets throw Lebanon under the bus.... Typical of lib idiots. Sacrifice anything so long as it is a path to more power. Unless you are really delusional and think that you can make nice with a society who's major congregating factor is Israeli and Western hate. Along with a bunch of other fears and hates. Makes me laugh that you nutters fall for the diplomacy line every time. "Oh yes, we would love to help you in Iraq..." Regan was the last president to successfully negotiate with the Iranians, but the nutters shot that down. Not that I would be in favor of that strategy, but it is funny that lib idiots didn't want to negotiate if it meant success for Regan. Oh, and didn't another traitorous scum lib Dem senator thwart US foreign policy then to? A little trip to support the commie bastard Ortega? Yes a long and sordid history of hindering America from within... Oh, don't forget the other traitors who colluded with the North Vietnamese.

Fight internal oppression by socialist Liberals!!!!!!!

Liberals Seriously Want the Bush Administration to be Hitler's Nazi Party

2006-09-22T10:04:00.000-10:00

Ok, its a big title, but consider it for a moment. Now, follow along the twisty windy road to follow. It is scary and amazing that there are people who really swallow this. The original provocation went something like:

Subject: Irony
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:55:57 -0700
From: -----------
To: -----------

Irony-an event or result marked by incongruity.

To Wit:
US widow deported over Nazi past

An elderly German woman who kept secret her role as a Nazi concentration camp guard for more than 60 years has been deported from the US, it has emerged. Elfriede Rinkel, who was married to a Jewish man, was described as a "nice, sweet lady" by those who knew her. Mrs Rinkel, 84, never revealed the grim details of her past during the 47 years she lived in San Francisco. But earlier this month US officials uncovered her role as a guard during WWII, and deported her back to Germany. Mrs Rinkel's husband Fred was a German Jew who arrived in the US after escaping the Holocaust. He died in 2004, never learning of his wife's secret.

'Horrific mistreatment' According to the US Department of Justice, Mrs Rinkel served as a guard at the Ravensbruck women's labour camp in Germany from June 1944 until April 1945, when it was abandoned by the Nazis. There she worked with an SS-trained attack dog, but was not a member of the Nazi party. Attack dogs were used to march malnourished inmates back and forth from slave labour sites each day, the department added. An estimated 90,000 people died at the camp during WWII.

"She was... such a nice, sweet lady who seemed to have a very loving relationship with her husband..." Gene Kaufman.

"Concentration camp guards such as Elfriede Rinkel played a vital role in the Nazi regime's horrific mistreatment of innocent victims," Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said.

Let us now move into the future, say September 2068.

News item: An elderly American soldier who kept secret his role as an Abu Gruib guard for more than 60 years has be extradited to Iraq. He had served as a guard at the infamous Iraqi prison in 2004-2006 where he worked with a trained attack dog, but was not a member of the now long outlawed Republican party. An estimated 90,000 peopled died as a result of the US attack during the early 2000's. "Prison guards such as this man played a vital role in the Bush regime's horrific mistreatment of innocent Iraqi victims" says the Assistant Attorney General.

Which is to say, what goes around comes around.

Well of course I found this quite distasteful, but right in line with common liberal Bush hate. The fever swamp is full of rhetoric like this. However, as this particular barb originated from a lib with a brain, a response was necessary, and here is what I sent.

Irony? I would say you are seriously screwed in the head. But we already knew that. Abu was for bad guys and suspected bad guys. But you can't see that. Nazi death camps were of a different nature obviously. So stupid you libs are. Liberal guilt and Bush hatred combined into one seriously screwed up view of the world. Heard that Pres Mahmoud in a interview with his own media say "Kofi called me and said not to worry about the resolution and sanctions, nothing will come of it." How is that? And the French, signing the resolution, now throw it out the window. Ah the UN, fertilizer of evil, bastion of Dictators and Socialists.

Its funny that you want the Republican party to be the Nazis. Yet your own party holds up true fascists and dictators as glorious role models. Very odd.

As you would expect, with such glorious rhetoric, we got a rapid response defending the nutters view. As you can guess, the overriding theme is one of Bush hate coupled to blame America first. Not very original, but we need to be reminded (maybe):

well.
a. Iran is not a D vs R issue. It's a US/west policy issue. Notice how everybody who is against Iran getting a bomb, if that's really what they are up to, already have the bomb. And the US made sure that India, Israel and Pakistan (Pakistan!!!) have the bomb. The US also supported Iraq under Saddam in the 80's when he was working on a bomb because we thought he'd use it on Iran. Is there a little bias here! Yes, there is. And Iran can't help but notice, as do all third world countries, that the US will do nothing against a country that HAS the bomb, for example North Korea. The bomb is a deterrent, and Iran may feel that they need a deterrent (though of course I can't see why......).

b. The issue about the guards isn't who the victims were. From your point of view it's bad to use torture and mass murder if the victims are innocent Jews, but it's ok if they are innocent Iraqis. Either torture and mass murder is wrong, period, or it's not. Which is it oh Christian conservative? Where does Jesus stand on the issue of torture and mass murder? (as an aside, u might recall that the Nazis said the Jews were 'bad guys' too. I mean, they did 'stab the Fatherland in the back in 1918, they are responsible for the Communist Red Terror in Bavaria, and they burned the Reichstag building, right.)

c. Do you really think that the residents of the Nazi death camps and the residents of Abu Gruib would see a big difference between the two while they are being tortured? Is not the behavior that took (takes) place in such places wrong on its face, regardless of who the victims are and regardless of who is committing the crime? Evil is evil.

d. Have seen nil on any such phone call. Gimme a citation? In any event, I find it odd that the US who always says that sanctions don't work (like in Iraq, South Africa, Guatemala, Zimbabwe etc etc) suddenly thinks they will. Anyhow, just what sanctions u got in mind? Russia is right next door and will be glad to sell whatever Iran needs in exchange for oil and influence in the region. The world needs to buy Iranian oil, so I doubt sanctions would work at all. As a strategy sanctions would have the same effect in Iran as they had in Iraq, simply united the people of the country against the outsiders; the complete marginalization of moderates in the country as all rally round the flag.

e. Exactly what dictators in the UN did you have in mind. Remember we went thru the list of UN members a month or so ago and came up with very few on the list of 192 member states; unless, of course you want to count traditional American allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, and Qatar as shining examples of 'democracy'.

f. this last one really tickles me. What party put in power and/or supported with billions of taxpayer dollars: The Generals in Vietnam, Burma, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, South Africa, Cuba (before Castro), Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq........the list goes on and on. Well, it wasn't us socialists jack. It was the R's and the D's. Git a grip bub. As long as we're about it, who sold munitions to Japan and loaned Nazi Germany money? Who went over and kissed and made up with Commie China? Who's made up with Libya and signed trade agreements with the Col.? Gee, the socialists? Not hardly. The US will do ANYTHING for money.

I didn't spend much time covering all points in my reply, but you can guess what the central theme was. Unless you have no sense of reality.

Yes, again, its the mote in your eye. On topic a, your theme remains consistent, its all our fault. So point a is no point at all. Point b, you again equate the mass extinction of ethnic groups with possible combatants in a war. Its is a "Holy Treaty" of your religion that all those Iraqis were poor innocent bystanders, and if they weren't, well we drove them to do whatever it was they did to get incarcerated. Your very dishonest with yourself if you actually believe this liberal crack, and if you don't then you equally duplicitous for being a mouthpiece of such inanity. Its seems radical liberalism has removed that gift of critical thinking.

Where is the mass murder?

Where is the systematic torture?

Crickets are chirping. If you mean the tactics we used on the 14 pigs that were moved to Guantanamo, go for it. Pull there fingers off. Boil them in oil. I think most of society is actually in support of radical treatment of radicals. If you are trying to pull the fever swamp line that we have murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, then you are either a fever swamp parrot or quite on the far side. So, was the firebombing of Dresden murder? Your nutter position is just a personal redefinition of warfare to suit your political needs, not very enlightening.

Are you freaking nuts? Lets see, starved, beat, forced labor, then you get shot, torched or gassed. En masse. The pleasant Nazi experience. And on the other side, free food, medical aide, access to the Red Cross. Oh, and most are simply released after being picked up. Yes, there were a few that were humiliated, so what. And a few died. So what. Your comparison is so revealing of how sick the left has become, that it saddens me. Anyhow, on to point e, which is irrelevant. They love to loath the US, have done so for as long as we have been successful. The UN has become a parody of a joke. When a confirmed state sponsor of terrorism gets a ovation, it doesn't matter what the label on the governmental system is of the gathered nations, they are not our friends.

For the last point, you again descend into the blame the US first mental defense. Its kinda weak. And your socialists have such a great track record, yea, the perfect foil. Right.

So of course we will get a reply to that. Here is where the waters get muddy. To defend the indefensible, arguments are crafted that do not address the root of the current conflict. Furthermore, you can smell the idiotic premise of "lets all talk and just get along" underlying many statements.

Our fault? Who's 'our'? I'm happy to start with WW1 policies of the UK and France. (The Crusades might be a bit tooooo far back.) So, during WW1 the Brits et all divie up the middle east with France. They need oil for their fleets and industry, and the Brits want to protect passage via Suez to India. So they make up countries as they go along. Basic history of the Middle East it seems to me. The US role doesn't come until WW2 and after as the Brit and French empires crumble and we step into the power vacuum in competition with Russia during the Cold War. Remember the Truman Doctrine as it relates to Iran. Essentially, the above three powers supported (and support) any government that will protect our economic (now exclusively oil) interests in the region, and claim to be anti-commie (like Nasser) Remember the Brits and French reaction when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. Remember the US reaction when Iran voted in an government that wanted to nationalize Iranian oil. The same story in any number of places. So, yes, the West's suppression of legitimate democratic aspirations and nationalist governments in the Middle East actually PRODUCED the flowering of the Islamist extremist movement; we caused it by 80 years of stupid policy in the area. There is no reason to believe that there would now be ANY significant Islamist movement EXCEPT in reaction to those policies.

It matters not a wit WHO the people are; we should not pursue a policy of torture UNDER ANY CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER, PERIOD. That is not what the US stands for, that is not our way of dealing with enemies in time of war, it is a counterproductive policy in many ways, and it costs us whatever moral high ground there is. It IS NOT RIGHT, and that alone is sufficient reason not to torture, period.

regarding next statement... Bull pucky. I said no such thing. You talk like Artmitage and Scooter. If there is a case to be made for criminal prosecutions then go ahead and make it. Go to some kind of judicial situation, produce the evidence and proceed. The US isn't doing that because: a. most of the people picked up in Afghanistan and Iraq can't be shown to have done a damn thing. b. In an open court they would recount their mistreatment and torture, the case would get thrown out and the US would look bad. Sure there are some guilty people in the herd..... they should have been sorted out early and brought to trial. Now they can't be.

As for the moral issue of torture and mass murder: ah, u don't like the words mass murder. OK, lets get technical. Crimes against humanity, violations of the rules of war, genocide, crimes against peace......read the treaties. There are literally thousands of such incidents that have occurred in Iraq that qualify.

Where is the mass murder? see above

Where is the systematic torture? well, to start with it's in the policy statements issued in the commander in chiefs name from DOD which approved those practices which the US Supreme court found to be in violation of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Now lets add in the rendition process, CIA secret prisons, sending captives to countries for torture----all widely practiced and such obvious violations of US and international law they don't deserve comment.

regarding next statement... Yes, I see true Christian values coming thru now. Torture for Jesus.....welcome to the 14th century. Well. First, most of the US does not approve of torture. Second, even if they did it is neither legal nor moral. If you become a barbarian to fight barbarians you have lost. What is the justification for the use of torture? The experts tell us that the information you get is unreliable. Ask those victims of the Inquisition who had to admit that they consorted with the 'devil'. Sure usable confessions there. The experts also tell us that the way to get cooperation with a prisoner is quite different. You befriend them. You use a system of rewards. You get their confidence. You undermine their belief structure. Good grief people, learn a little psychology! I also note that you ASSUME that the fourteen new addees to Gitmo ARE GUILTY. How nice. But suppose you are WRONG, and some of them have really DONE NOTHING. Now you have tortured an innocent person, probably even gotten them to confess to terrible things......then what? Are you really willing to take the position that it is OK to torture the innocent? I don't recall learning that in Sunday School or my highschool civics classes.....at least outside of medieval Spain. Suppose you get a confession. You can't use it in court. If you get a confession in some kangaroo military court are you really willing to execute somebody JUST on the basis of that confession extracted under torture? Wow.

Now about Dresden. Of course it was murder. Question is, under the SAME rules the Allied Commission applied to the Germans, was it a war crime. Well, lemme tell you about one of those cases. Karl Donitz, grand-admiril of the submarine fleet, was going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and waging aggressive war because of his use of 'unrestricted submarine warfare'. His defense council contacted one Chester W. Nimitz, whose name should ring a bell. Adm. Nimitz PERSONALLY wrote a friend of the court brief in which he advocated NOT proceeding with case. Why? Because the very first command issued to the Pacific fleet on December 7, 1941 was to the sub fleet, and it said COMMENCE UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE AGAINST JAPAN. Which is to say, if Donitz was a war criminal, why so were the Americans. Needless to say, that part of the case was dropped.

regarding next statement... Well, there are two levels of problem here. First, what did \do American forces themselves do; second what have/do the Iraqi government FOR WHICH WE ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE do. On the first level, there is good evidence (as current criminal prosecutions show) that US troops and CIA torturers systematically abused thousands of Iraqi prisoners. This isn't sexual humiliation at Abu G, it's beating with electric cables, waterboarding, genital electrical shocks and the like. It is likely that hundreds died as a result, thousands deformed and crippled.
on the second level, whether you like it or not, the current Iraqi government is responsible to the US for it's illegal behavior. We are the de facto occupying power and have responsibility for what occurs. On a higher moral level, the US is responsible in that none of this would have happened absent the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. As several people told the Bushits at the time, you break it, you buy it. Now George is stuck to that tarbaby, with no visible way out.

regarding next statement... Gee, hope ur not claiming that the US didn't do all that......are my history books wrong? I don't recall the socialists ever having been in power in this country? When was that?

We must address the last section in that its a total fabrication. We are not legally responsible for the Iraqi government, they exist on their own now. Stupid liberal tricks, go try again. Then the claims of torture... No proof of systematic torture at all. In fact, there is such little real evidence of any real torture one wonders if we are aggressively pursuing the nasty death lovers hard enough. All jest aside, this is another "Holy Truth" of the church of liberalism. "Likely" hundreds died. I could find evidence of one. All the rest are claims without proof. "Thousands" deformed and crippled... Again, not much evidence of any American involvement in such. Notice that we are responsible as the "de facto" occupying power, and hence culpable for any abuses made by Iraqi forces. To summarize, we are responsible for 'illegally' invading Iraq. We created the terrorists. We are responsible for those stopping the terrorists. We a responsible for not doing enough to stop the violence. We are responsible for being to violent stopping the violence. Oh, how does the liberal sleep at night.

Can you believe this? Seriously, the nutters really believe. Confused they are, very (Yoda). But the philosophical point that seems to be raised is interesting. Everywhere falling back on some legality compelling us to prosecute this modern conflict according to the liberals view. Clearly the fever swamp does not recognize the threat Islamofascism poses to the west. More than that, the liberal's struggle is against Americans, not our enemies. Do they clamor for Mahmoud's arrest for violating the Geneva conventions by calling for the genocide? Do they want to hold real criminals to task like Hamas or Hezbollah? Do they care when US armed forces get their throats cut? Tortured and dragged through the street, yet not much about bringing the perps to justice from the left. No, its all about how we created this problem, we are making it worse, we are responsible for creating all these problems. What idiots. Attitudes like this tend to make me more nationalistic just to rub their noses. This is the greatest country on earth. We are the beacon of freedom. Millions are trying to emigrate here every year. Socialist wankers around the world loath us. What more proof do you need that we are on the right path? American, proud to be I am (Yoda).

Thoughts of Evolutionary Biology

2006-08-24T09:55:00.000-10:00

So I get forwarded another excerpt from our favorite fish-wrap, the Old Grey Hag, concerning a 'alarming' omission of in the funding of poor undergraduate students in the specific field of evolutionary biology. Its got all the perfect trappings of a great liberal puff piece; possible meddling of Christians, concerned elitists, aid for the downtrodden, and the core belief of the new liberal religion 'separation of church and state'. What more could you ask for! Unfortunately, I don't like to link to the Hag, besides you have to sign up to access content, but if you must this might work (link does not work - title is "Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List"). Hmmm, are they making money over there at the Hag? Here is the one liner attached to the forward:

The looney tunes CCCRW strikes again! Religious ideology over science!

My response was inspiring:

Boy, you complain about blogs, yet this tripe is downright conspiratorial! And its a major newspaper! No evidence of anything except knee jerk responses and intentional spin for you anti Christian nutters. Which is strange, because it is not a large majority of Christians who are against evolution. It is a small group of literalist who really make it their pastime to look stupid. I wrote a nice piece for the 'cloth' per se against the idiotic current fad of Intelligent Design. God gave man a brain, and a free will. Use both and its pretty easy to see that the world is billions of years old, the continents move around, dinosaurs duked it out for millions of years ... yada yada. That is not the point of faith, yet some are adamant about trying to 'prove' whatever mythology they happen to believe. Speaking of evolution, you have to read this:

Cat-killing raccoons
Olympia Raccoons

Yes, humans have evolved to the point where we have neighborhood grief counseling for cat loss, and abject fear of some raccoons. Coons that have evolved themselves apparently, to a smarter, meaner class of urban predator. But the real evolution is in the newspaper business, who have degenerated into emotional pablum peddlers, kind of like slime mold of the soul. The similarities in intent and style betwixt all three articles is startling, though the content is completely dissimilar. Very interesting.

The Intelligent Dinosaur

2006-08-14T13:09:00.000-10:00

(more redstate rerelease - I want to make sure everyone can access)

I think to myself, Carlos, why would you want to heat up the apparently destructive debate on ID (Intelligent Design)? What can be gained by dividing the ranks of the conservative masses? And why would I want to cower under a pile of hot coals? But, alas, sensibility is not my strongest point, and I personally think dogmatic alignment with ones religious teachings are dangerous, no matter how 'right' you personal religion is. God gave you a mind and a soul. You are to use your mind to evaluate and be critical. Then exercises your will and decide. And for those who the fire has alighted, there is a additional promoting in your conscience on the decisions you make. Most likely your faith will be strengthened in the process.

For those who are now asking "Is Carlos going to get preachy?" I can assure you, I will focus the dialectic towards the conservative hermeneutic. (At the same time using obscure words with religious connotations, dope.) In other words, if you care not for the condition of your soul, but yearn for the days of Reagan, you will still find something here. And I will refrain from overt proselytizing, its my solemn promise and vow. Is that all the boilerplate cleared up? Apart from stating that no actual dinosaurs were made extinct in the creation of this exposition.The term science seems to mean many things to many people in this ID debate. Science is just a word meaning knowledge. The inference is to that which is knowable, things that can be seen, constructions that can be observed, processes that can be replicated. It also has the implication that observers can come to agreement on the description or labeling of known things. Here we face the first misunderstood aspect of modern science among those whose exposure is predominantly lay media. Known things in science are peer reviewed. This does not mean infallibility, or establish absolute truth. It simply means that the description is acceptable. It means when scientists communicate, they agree on the validity of the communication. In the process, obvious flaws are identified, and many theories that are easily disproved are avoided in the 'open' published discussion.

Lets comment briefly then on Darwin's theory. He made observations, proposed a explanation for those observations, and communicated that to the world. Modern science is not so much interested in proving the absolute 'origin' of life. It is interested in making connections between observations. So the first problem is solved. Yes there may be many misguided secularist in the scientific community who want to promote some ultimate origin apart from God as a curricula in public schools. But that is not science either. And there are many more non-scientific secularists who would go right along. This a political stance based on a philosophy, where the subject is comparative mythology more than science. Conversely, creating a paradigm that obfuscates the incredible body of evidence in support of mutogenesis and genetic phylogeny is equally not science.

Which brings us to the first argument. Many organisms evolve on a time scale that is easily observable during the human lifetime. Viruses and bacteria are a good example. Is it Gods hand mutating the genes of such? Or are they operating in a system designed by God? Either of these questions are fine, yet not the realm of science. What is the scientific aspect of this in regards to ID? Do I make a test out of bacterial strains and suddenly proclaim hidden intelligence is at work? First, it is not a provable test, as you would need to uncover the connections to the hidden intelligence. Second, the actual test of observing the changes in these organisms has been a part of the testable world of knowledge for decades, mutogenesis seems to explain things each time.

If you want to argue that mutogenesis is the connection to the Designer, that is just as well, yet still not the realm of science. It is a perfectly valid philosophical debate, and one that should be a part of public education. The origins of modern scientific thought were the classic minds, many of whom partook in the philosophical debate surrounding faith, and the awareness of that historic, and continuing conversation is not well represented in modern American curricula. We have strayed from our Enlightenment roots, and do not lay the groundwork for critical thinking in any systematic way within the public education system.

Before we stray into the intended territory I would ask this question of the reader: "As a conservative, what does science mean to you?" As you ponder, think for a moment what the scientist does. If he/she is good at their particular branch of science, they pursue primary research. This is the real experimentation and observation. They publish results, and promote theories to be investigated and validated by others. Some of these theories are unproven, and can not be validated until more information is gained. Here is another area of confusion. For instance, the theory of Global Warming is a hot political issue. Some people believe that we as a society can prevent further damage to the Earth by changing our lifestyles and cultures. Yet, the theory is not validated, the definition of damage is unclear, and there is no evidence we can control human impact, either socially or physically, in a global sense.

The analogous implication for ID is this: the theory of ID is not validated, the definition of organized complexity is unclear, and there is no evidence of direct involvement in the evolution of any species. Most will not fight with me over the first and third issues, so lets have fun with the second. Here is when we bring in the dinosaur. Complex higher order creatures. We even have a few remnants of that age with us today. Alligators and crocodiles have many similarities to some dinosaurs of yesteryear. Were they intelligently designed? I mean, most dinosaurs are extinct. A complex higher order being, that just didn't have what it took to survive. Or maybe the designer got tired of them? Is success and true complexity simply defined by brain tissue, or survivability? Is that the measure of organized complexity?

Presumably the designer in ID is God. Yet this is not inherent in the justification of ID, and we don't need to equate the two. But if it is my God, he doesn't make mistakes. And there is the real problem. ID in some ways attempts to judge what is more or less valuable, as if it is foreknown what the conclusion should look like. That is not a perfect designer. Unless your definition of ID is that of a Supreme Creator of the Universe. And that creating includes everything we can observe and learn about. Things like light from galaxies 13 billion years old, rocks billions of years old from the formation of the planet, and ancient dinosaurs. Its a whole creation full of amazing and wonderful things to discover. That is the platform into which man is placed, with the tools and desire to investigate it.

The ability to pursue science, the knowledge of the creation, the communication of that knowledge, is one of God's great gifts to man. Science predates the fall of man in Genesis 2:19,20:

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. "

In fact, science was Adams first pursuit before Eve, if only he had stayed on the straight and narrow. Or, as the contrarian would say, "Science is a poor substitute for love." And yes, personally I would ditch my field to keep my wife, however, not all of my dweebish colleagues have done that. Ah, we have strayed off topic slightly, the more important illumination is within our political debate among conservatives. A large loyal core of conservatives are Christians, some with varying degrees of 'fundamentalism'. Within this religious viewpoint are many healthy values that also define modern conservatism. Unfortunately, some baggage comes with the various doctrines. Faith brings freedom and understanding. But there is no necessity to suspend reason at the same time.

Likewise, for the atheist, who is not interested in science, the same can be said. There is no need for awe and fear at the apparent unknown complexity of scientific pursuit. Just develop healthy criticism of popularized 'science' and it relation to political topics. Simply being critical regarding 99% of what is reported in mass media about science will get you a long way towards comfortable understanding when it is necessary to make a decision. The real advances in science will integrate into society by the inherent success of the application, not by the politicization of the theory. Which leaves us with ID. It has not endured open criticism, and is far too recent a suggestion to begin developing primary school curricula around. And if you are simply headed for the comparative philosophy argument of divine origin vs primordial chaos, just back up a bit, and see that we would have great benefit from that topic in the curricula, but it is not the area of science.

Furthermore for the concerned conservative Christian, you can not purge modern science of liberals and atheist, who represent a majority in scientific academia. However, that is a result of the education systems forty year failure to promote critical thinking, not some inherent secular nature of science. Our political efforts, and debate, would be well served by continued illumination of the root causes of this problem. Openly debating certain fundamentalist regarding the existence of dinosaurs for example, is rightly so, a distracting and divisive waste for our community. But promoting the extreme benefit of critical thought, and separating science from the culture of modern academic Scientists, is a very positive and worth wile pursuit.

If you feel strongly about the secularization of our schools, you should be even more concerned with the removal of the foundations that construct a critical mind. As a Christian and a scientist, I could stomach the secular nature of public schools and their woefully inadequate scientific curricula, but I can not accept the removal of philosophic debate, and the apparent turning away from the superior nature of exposure to classic educational principals. If a child learns to think, when it comes time to decide on the real matters in life, he/she will be prepared. If a child simply learns pacifism and how to make sure everyone feels good, they may go far in science, business, or literature with natural talent, but they are not prepared to think critically. My intelligent Designer intends for each and every person to find fulfillment, and socialized liberalism in our education system is a poor substitute.

For the end, I leave you with this crackpot rumination. We are different from the beasts, and we have access to a amazing source of life. The real intelligence in the design is that access. The primary concern is finding life, promoting life, and preserving life. Science is a huge gift to man, yet it is God's afterthought in comparison to the overriding design. A designer without limitation of time, and unconstrained by physical laws, could create anything imaginable, yet the real intent is the ability to connect to perfection. To see free will choose life. To see perfect life grow and flourish. Hence, there is no intelligent dinosaur, simply not part of the plan.

Hedonistic Apologists and the Separation of Sex and State

2006-08-07T16:06:00.000-10:00

(rereleased from redstate archive)

What is one of the main tenets of the Church of Social Humanists? In general it is the pursuit of the universal pleasure. That each individual would receive equal resources, achieve the same 'happiness', and be free to obtain that which satisfies. It is intended to please everyone. The pursuit of pleasure universally. In fact it would be safe to say that it is the promotion of the pleasure state. Allowing (forcing) each individually the equal opportunity to experience that which is pleasing. But has this religion encroached upon the Constitution of the United States? Has our Judiciary become biased towards a particular belief system?The Oxford dictionary, great tome of wisdom, gives as a definition of Hedonism: "The doctrine or theory of ethics in which pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of action." Now in defense of the Church, we can dichotomize this theory into two separate positions, one of the egoist in search of only personal pleasure, and that of the universalistic who intends pleasure for all. The more clear comparison to the philosophy of the Church of Social Humanists is that of the global hedonist. Notice how we have not tread down the path of depravity yet? It is simply comparisons of accurate definitions, and labeling the actions of a modern political group.

Before I get to the core argument, we better deal with Liberals. The label that is liberal has changed over the course of time, just as the term conservative has. What we are dealing with here is not a discussion of the label, just an exploration of the modern philosophy and position. My contention is that within the political basket of those who could be considered modern liberals, a significant number are secular humanists. An additional subset of liberals, though not necessarily the equivalent set, are those who in action or name are socialists. Merge these together and you have the Church of Social Humanists. Yes, I call it a religion, as they have strayed into the reality of simply believing what they want, and acting upon that. They exercise faith in fitting what they are told into what they feel is right, and coming up with what they perceive as reality. This becomes the religion that they practice. Though not openly stated, humanity is the Deity they end up worshiping.

Now as a very accepting and universally open minded religion, so long as you agree with them, there are many expressions of faith. The one we will deal with today is the matter of copulation. The Church supports the position of promoting copulation amongst believers and non-believers. It is a pleasurable experience and should not be denied anyone. Also, the Church does not believe that this sacred act should be limited to specific social institutions such as marriage. That is against the goal of the equality of pleasure.

At this point, have I stretched the truth? I have qualified most of the argument, and tried to apply accurate interpretation to the actions of some Liberals. To reinforce before we make complete the argument, take an example. Ask a liberal (modern) some general questions about copulation. How do they feel about teenage exploratory sexuality? Is it wrong? Ask about swinging around in college. Is that wrong? These questions tend to expose what the liberal "believes" in regards to this issue. There are no facts necessary to establish moral behavior in this topic. Most moral institutions elevate copulation to a covenant between a man and a woman in the social institution of marriage. Those same institutions do not legislate this behavior in the modern age. However they aggressively promote this standard as a higher one and arguably more civilized.

Not so for the Church of Social Humanism. This religious institution has infiltrated the legal system and forced the promotion of its beliefs on the general population. The Judge has become an apologist for the hedonists. The primary target of their legal actions is the public school. It started with the erasure of gender differences and continued with the emasculation of the male. Now it has taken the overt action of promotion of "safe sex", which includes a very broad definition of what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior. They have begun to legally force their religious views on younger children as well to establish "normalcy". This violates not only the child's personal choice of moral behavior (which is still forming), but invalidates the teaching and modeling of accepted behavior by the parent.

Does this obvious promotion of religious beliefs constitute state promotion of religion? Must we force the left to acknowledge that their opinions have become beliefs, and that their actions constitute a practice of those beliefs? Or can we operate under this reality without the overt self declaration of their religion? Clearly the actions of this religious group are in violation of the Constitution. A clear violation of the Separation of Sex and State. We must identify those in the judiciary who are letting their activism lead them to become Hedonistic Apologists. Conservatives should begin to shine light on these actions and label them for what they are. Social Humanism can constitute a religious faith as strong as any other. And if we don't want a state sponsored religion, we need to act soon, at least in regards to copulation.

Mainstream Propaganda Gets Busted and Liberal Ignorance

2006-08-07T11:49:00.000-10:00

Today's exchange revolves around the Reuters story of doctored photographs. Follow the links if you are not familiar with the story. Here is evidence of how dense the liberal mentality is, and how they really can not comprehend the blog world. The original provocation took this form:

Lemme see if I got today's news summary right.....
1. Between the war in the Middle East and rot in Alaska, the price of a barrel of oil will quickly go past $80. (We'll ignore the role of wasteful consumption for the moment.) The BBC is forecasting $86!
2. Israel is busy rounding up the Palestinian government....(so there is nobody they CAN talk to....)
3. The Lebanese government has now been completely driven into the arms of the Hez, so much so that they are now appealing to Arab governments for support. (since the West sure ain't gunna help them any!)
4. The Somalia government has dissolved itself....headed for the scrapheap...so the extremists are in charge.
5. The US is in the process of abandoning the rest of Iraq to defend Baghdad.....the prelude to collapse.
6. The Brits are about to split from the US and join Europe/France over Lebanon....(about time, too).

Hah, the real news today is the exposure of Reuters shilling for terrorist propaganda, and no MSM reporting of it. Oh, there was a little story of the Lebanese PM downgrading the 'Massacre' from 40 dead to one. I don't get your comment on the Brits, we are hanging with the French on crafting the stupid cease fire, the one that won't happen. Try starting here (The Jawa Report): Doctor Photo

Well, sure nuthing in the news I've seen about any photos. And since ur CCCRW didn't take the time or care, or didn't HAVE a source, there is no way to check is there. But, since it's in a blog it's GOTTA be real, right?! That's the usual far right response we've seen for years now....Well, it COULD have been,so that means it WAS. Take two aspirin and come back when ur sober. Guess that means that the US vassel state isn't bombing the hell outta Lebanon either....it's all a fake....nobody really dieing.

Ya, the PM got a bad report report on the bombing, but, you'll note,unlike SOME people we could mention, like the US Marine Corps, he came out instantly with a correction and set the record straight.

On the Brits. Apparently the US and France are really some way from agreeing on troops and when....the US still insisting that we wait until the vassal state.....I mean Israel.....wins a 'great victory'. Gunna be a long wait! The Brits, on the other hand, are moving to the European solution of a cease fire sooner rather than later. The big hang up seems to be do you do a cease fire and then move in, or move in and force a cease fire. ( I vote for the later...move in in force, a couple of divisions, infantry, tanks, big guns, airforce, kick the hez and israel out at the same time, restore Lebanesse control. No rockets, no bombing, period. Trouble is, to do that the US must agree to push real real hard on the vassel state....and we are not about to do that....therefore, another failure of US policy in the Middle East is taking place.

Geez, u gotta stop reading that shit on the blogs.....drivel. Like their information is somehow magically better and their opinions somehow informed.....

Uh, you didn't even look at the pictures did you? Or follow the links.... Reuters has had to remove some hundreds of this guys pictures, and fire him. Gee, why did they do that if its just some stupid blog? Actually, three independent blogs have discovered doctored separate photos. Did you even read the article? How about the 'poor distraught woman' who apparently owns multiple houses? Yeah, good question, why have you not seen anything about it in the MSM? Hmmm, maybe they know that they run with anti Semitic propaganda all the time, and this story just doesn't fit the action line. The funny thing in this is your poo pooing a blog, that has accurate speculation, with clear facts, that doesn't claim to be news, just commentary, in deference to a Hollowed News Outlet, that put out doctored photos. Welcome to the new media! You obviously didn't follow any links, so have a gander at some more fun:

Ynet coverage
Photo Doc Sacked

Now, as to your solution, are you suggesting that some as yet to be determined force (comprised of what army?) will fight Hez? Yeah, that's a good one. So, this cease fire, who is going to force Hez to disarm again? They want a cease fire for sure, have to resupply sometime. And there is no way they will just roll over. Gee, maybe Kofi could go negotiate with them, legitimize them, and further stab the Israelis in the back, as the UN is want to do. Good idea.

Well, as I indicated in the intro, it amazes me that, when stared in the face with obvious facts, liberals will stick there heads in the sand simply because they don't like the source. It is a clear case of the Rather syndrome.

Answering The Mideast Mayhem Liberal Globalist

2006-07-31T11:28:00.000-10:00

Lets examine a line of questioning:

So, why hasn't US worked for immediate cease-fire?

Uh, lets see. Hez is a terrorist organization. With the express purpose of removing the state of Israel from the map. What idiot thinks that you will be able to stop them from attacking? Oh, wait, those cease fires worked great before. Gee, Hez sure appreciated Israel pulling back to its own border. What good is a immediate cease fire? Except to make anti-Semitic peaceniks in the UN feel good about themselves. Hey, maybe there is a Nobel Peace idiot prize available for someone here.... Bet Kofi wants one.

Ah, for some the world is so simple. Alas, it is not simple. You didn't answer the question. The answer is, of course, the forlorn hope that either the Israeli bombing will destroy much of Hezbollah, or, that the bombing of civilians will turn them against the Hez. Neither one has ever happened, and won't happen now. Instead, every bomb makes more Hez supporters in Lebanon, which also means more advantage for Syria and indirectly Iran. Once again, there is no military solution to the problem. The UN/NATO/Arab League or whatever needs to work up nerve enough to physically separate the warring parties while the Arabs pressure Syria and Iran and the US cuts off Israel. The US remains the key to the Middle East because only the US can force Israel to the bargaining table. But the US won't do that and won't go to the diplomatic table because 'we don't talk to terrorists!" Well, sooner or later we WILL talk to terrorists, because that is the only way left. So....separate the warring parties and put together a peace conference with the US exerting the necessary arm twisting to get Israel to support a Palestinian state. Start to isolate the extremists instead of creating more of them. Move Israel back to pre-1967 borders, with guarantees by the US and others. I hope its clear that Israel over reacted to all this. Why the US can't see the trend of the recent few years escapes me: Palestine elected Hamas, Lebanon elects many Hezbollah, Egypt elected many Muslim Brotherhood, Iran lost it's moderate government and on and on. All because the US withdrew from the peace process in 2001 and became nutzo after Sept 11. Remember, Egypt and Jordon DO recognize the state of Israel.....and others will too.

Come on, derisive tripe. The population suffering the most casualties in these areas has already been warned multiple times be Israel to leave. Now, the evil Hez apparently place high value on making sure that they operate near civilians for the express purpose of exploiting those casualties. Nasty little men aren't they? Where are all the calls for war crimes against Hez? It is against the Geneva convention to intentionally fire upon civilians (ala Hez rockets) and equally wrong to use civilians as shields. Crickets chirping at the UN on that one.

Now, to counter the stupid notion of creating more Hez, did we create more Nazis by bombing Dresden? How about more fanatical Imperial Kamikaze troops by firebombing Tokyo? What is unreachable to the the peacenik is that we will not ever succeed in talking to terrorists simply for the fact that that is part of their strategy. They will say anything, but it won't stop their plan. It is asinine to 'open up a dialog' with a group that is not going to change its stated purpose of the destruction of Israel. This idea that you can isolate them is equally juvenile. The only way they will be isolated is if Lebanon somehow cracks down on them and Iran (Syria) stops supporting them. No UN force will sustain any casualties, and the Hez will just exploit them, so cross that little answer off the list. Lebanon does not have the will or strength to do it and Iran is hell bent on world destruction at some point, so this is not a fight you will win diplomatically.

The final point is what really exposes the myopic and cancerous view of the peacenik left, namely the meme "its all our fault". We 'withdrew' from the peace process. How stupid is that? Maybe we need to invite some terrorists to the White House. I mean, Clinton sure created a lasting peace by diologing with Arafat. We went 'nutzo' after 9/11. So, the only people who are "sane" are a bunch of 9/10 liberal peaceniks? It is amazing that something so obvious can be rejected completely by a whole political philosophy. The real war apparently is between those who recognize the threat to humanity from Islamofascist and the intelligentsia who don't. It is going to take more strikes in Europe before there is a change. That is my prediction.

Keeping Up With the Demented Anti-War Elitists

2006-07-28T13:14:00.000-10:00

More mail, more stupidity. Tell me what you think of the platform of the liberal with a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The excerpt in the email comes from a TomsDispatch post, and is a preview of a upcoming Jonathan Schell article. Lets have some fun:

Well, here's a pretty good, if brief, summary of the way 'us liberals' see the current administration.

Anyone who wants to write about the constitutional crisis unfolding in the United States today faces a peculiar problem at the outset. There is a large body of observations that at one and the same time have been made too often and yet not often enough - too often because they have been repeated to the point of tedium for a minority ready to listen, but not often enough because the general public has yet to consider them seriously enough.

The problem for a self-respecting writer is that the act of writing almost in its nature promises something new. Repetition is not really writing but propaganda - not illumination for the mind but a mental beating. Here are some examples of the sort of observations I have in mind, at once over-familiar and unheard:

President George W Bush sent US troops into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but they weren't there. He said Saddam Hussein's regime had given help to al-Qaeda, but it had not.

He therefore took the nation to war on the basis of falsehoods.

His administration says the torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere has been the work of a few bad apples in the military, whereas in fact abuses were sanctioned at the highest levels of the executive branch in secret memos.

His administration lambastes leakers, but its own officials illegally leaked the name of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame, to discredit her husband politically.

He flatly stated to the public that all wiretaps of Americans were ordered pursuant to court warrants, whereas in fact he was authorizing and repeatedly reauthorizing warrantless wiretaps. These wiretaps violated a specific law of Congress forbidding them.

His administration has asserted a right to imprison Americans as well as foreigners indefinitely without the habeas corpus hearings required by law.

Wars of aggression, torture, domestic spying and arbitrary arrest are the hallmarks of dictatorship, yet Congress, run by the president's party, has refused to conduct full investigations into either the false WMD claims, or the abuses and torture, or the warrantless wiretaps, or the imprisonment without habeas corpus.

When Congress passed a bill forbidding torture and the president signed it, he added a "signing statement" implying a right to disregard its provisions when they conflicted with his interpretation of his powers.

The president's secret legal memos justifying the abuses and torture are based on a conception of the powers of the executive that gives him carte blanche to disregard specific statutes as well as international law in the exercise of self-granted powers to the commander-in-chief nowhere mentioned in the constitution.

If accepted, these claims would fundamentally alter the structure of the US government, upsetting the system of checks and balances and nullifying fundamental liberties, including guarantees in the Fourth Amendment to the constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantees of due process. As such, they embody apparent failures of the president to carry out his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States".

March on, George, to the death of the Republic and the end of Liberty.

First thing to point out is the incredible smug derision of the American public by the statement that we have yet to take these constitutional challenges 'seriously enough'. Not only is he a prig, but a stupid one at that. Can't see the threat of Islamofascism first off, then accuses the general public of being stupid for not agreeing with his position. Gee Johnathan, maybe the general public DOES see the real threat, and HAS made a choice. Suck it up dope. After establishing himself as much smarter than the rest of us, he then proceeds to parrot a whole list of "Truth as I Told it" leftist inanities. What is amazing is that these people actually tell each other this stuff over and over again until it is gospel in their liberal religion. A most remarkable phenomena.

If you boil down every statement though, it clearly hinges on Bush hatred and nothing else. They have no vision of what America faces, no memory of how many times we have been attacked, and no solution for any problem at all. They just want their comfy power back. The whole position is symptomatic of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), and very sad. Another amazing point regarding this current mindset of liberals is that they can not seem to get control of themselves. BDS has pushed them so far off base that they can't even see the changing landscape of American politics. What happened to the days of Clinton having his finger in the air? He was a 'poll'-itician that garnered success. No more for the Donkey club. They can't even decide amongst themselves about whether to support the war or not. And for the most part, simply because they are worried about individual districts. They really don't act like we are at war. Short sighted, ignorant political hacks who have lost their emotional compass. Fixated on Bush, obsessed with one man. Bush, the devil of the liberal religion. Everything he does is pure evil. Demented Elitists indeed!

I have to jump to the end of the Schell article not included in the email.

Can this pattern be broken? Voices are already being heard advising that the opposition to the Iraq War and the failed vision it embodies should, with the next election in mind, now embrace a generalized new readiness to use force. But that way lies only a new chapter in the sorry history of the pitiful, helpless giant.

The pattern he speaks of is a absurd creation of his mind where the government becomes more or less totalitarian based on the results of fighting wars both real and in the media. So, he complains about the Iraq failure, and that that will lead to a easier use of force. And somehow that links to the next election, where he apparently doesn't think his peacnik friends stand much chance of gaining control. Anyhow, tho point of the above is his perception of pitiful America, the helpless giant, and its sorry history. Pleasant fellow, so upbeat and full of hope! Go move to France and get it over with. Be the inner socialist! Live the life of the peacenik cult in its true form! I leave you with the thought that eloquence combined with inanity come in strange packages. But a cure for BDS has yet to be found.

Dealing With More Liberal Idiocy

2006-06-28T14:10:00.000-10:00

I have left this one on the back burner for a while, as they don't even rate mention. But, as more than one person has been led here, I will address it. I speculated about the quantification of violence and liberals propensity for making horrific claims about our soldiers in the aptly titled "Al Qaida Just a Crime Wave?" What grand humor. Alas, there are those who laugh only at the destruction of our traditions, society, and unborn. The link in question is from a blog entitled "Intelligent Discontent". Notice anything amiss? The truly intelligent would not name their blog 'adjective' 'adjective'. Try this one, "Vapid Soreness". Or how about "Compulsive Expletive"? Anyhow, they make a vain attempt at sarcasm, then parade out gruesome photos of dead Iraqi civilians, babies included. Of course war is horrible, I loath the destruction. But where, oh enlightened lib, are your pictures of the hundreds of dead children at the hands of terrorists? Where are your pictures of the millions of dead fetuses from your abortion mills? You are responsible for their deaths, are you not?

Should we leave Iraq, and its innocent, to the hands of Islamofascists? You want a policy that will virtually guaranty the subjugation of millions, let alone the prospect of another killing fields? All so that you can gain political power? Or absolve your guilt? Juvenile imbeciles, that would be a better name. I apologize for my readers in not linking up to this material. If you really care, you can find it. But don't bother. Alright, enough ranting, thanks for your patience.

Things Jihadists Don't Like

2006-06-28T13:36:00.000-10:00

Or, one thing they don't like. Me. Yes, I got a great comment on my piece about the jihad junkies and their cyber war. What inspired this 'anonymous' dupe to put finger on keys in anger is unknown. How is life in Turkey? But, I got a nice surprise, when the referring page is Goog's blog search of cyber hack. At least I make the front page of something. What is life like filled with hate? One thing jihadists certainly have in common with liberals...

Liberal Solution for Somalia

2006-06-14T12:07:00.000-10:00

I get this in the mailbag:

So, us Liberals Lefties want to know,
Why was the Scrub and the CIA
Shoveling money and guns
To the Somali Warlords
What killed our Marines!

Poetic to say the least! Could be a bit on the wailing and gnashing of teeth side, but I stoically ignored the barb and soldiered on:

That is a disingenuous question, in that it is not the same warlords that killed our men. But, I ask myself the same question, what in the world are we doing? More importantly, why in the hell does the U.N., who is supposedly the wise example setter and caring institution in all things Africa, totally ignore this? I don't get it. And the Euros certainly shouldn't want another terrorist training ground, whats up? You wouldn't be happy with anything Bush does. But apart from that, what should be done there? No government, no economy, no security. What do you do?

Ah, well.
I'd sit down with Kofi and work a deal. The UN contacts the new Somalia government and sees if they need a little UN help. Ya know, food, medical, transport, etc etc on a small scale and building up. But, set some expectations. We'll supply this stuff as long as you respect human rights, no mass killings, don't harbor terrorists etc etc. Work out a quid pro quo....backstage, quietly, diplomatically. Keep the Americans out of it! We should support this, a lot. Give it a few years. Ask to appoint a low level diplomatic mission. No big rush. Patience....

Matter of fact.
That's about how I'd deal with most Islamic governments. Don't give them a reason to turn to the hardliners. Make it easy to be moderate. Try to get along. Talk, a lot. Listen even more. Solve the Palestine issue. Take your time. Find a way. Compromise. Everything is on the table to be TALKED about, but there are some things we WON'T DO. But, you give a little, we'll give a little.

Wow, that tells me a lot. In other words, you have no plan. Oh, wait, you want to give aid to terrorist supporting 'warlords' so long as they promise to be good. I guess you would have to throw in some security dough as well. Oh, wait, that sounds like the Bush plan, only no filthy American influence. Hey, I bet there is some good graft to be made in your plan. Join the U.N., get billions for your home country and a little on the side for yourself. Yeah, great plan. Has worked real well in the past. You have correctly expressed the true blindness of the liberal socialist. Thanks.

That is it, hope everyone enjoys the restatement of the obvious!

Fitzmas in June?

2006-06-13T13:57:00.000-10:00

Ah, we see that Fitzmas is the holiday when the gifts that you get, keep on giving. Yes, it's summer, but it might as well be snowing! Rove apparently is not going to be charged in the Plamegate affair. Gee, two and a half years, and he couldn't come up with even perjury? How very sad for the leftist nutters who have made this their Waterloo. But, not to be dismayed, a statement was released by the Plame-Wilson's legal council hinting that this will not be the end of the matter! By gosh by golly, the evil overlord Rove must be brought to justice! Hey, what ever happened to Joe's other 'lawsuit' against the former general Vallely? I guess Joe just can't get a break anywhere. But what impact will this have on all the faithful who have tried to ride this donkey to glory, only to see said donkey hobble, trip, fall over gasping and expiring? Half the Kossacks will need to schedule some depression counseling.

More Wacky War Wonderment

2006-06-07T14:04:00.000-10:00

For documentation and reference, here is an argument ongoing in regards to my piece about levels of violence (block quote = original, then my response, italicized is the nuttiness, and my last following):

------------------->>

First, as the 'occupying power' we are responsible for law and order in Iraq. I don't think we are responsible for Columbia, etc.

So you glibly ignore my argument? If its just about the numbers, then for a war zone its pretty tame. And the responsibility thing, hmmm, peaceniks don't want to be responsible for much. But how to stay with the peace and harmony for all thing, and ignore such violence simply because 'we' are not responsible? Irregardless, my argument was not about the lefts need for atrocities in the news cycle, simply about large numbers of people, and what level of violence they had.

So....there's 20 times the terrorist death rate in Iraq than in Columbia...not counting what the US does. And Scrub proclaimed that the war was over (remember the speech on the USS Lincoln?) Just what was your argument again? The US destroys the infrastructure of Iraq, so the Iraqis are to blame?.....

------------------->>

Second, the deaths in Iraq are a direct result of US foreign policy actions.

Here is where you nutters are so ignorant. Threat denial, and always falling back to the stock "U.S. collective guilt" answer.

Rant, rant. Then name call. How much "terrorism" was there in Iraq before 2002? None. It came with the US invasion. So, who IS responsible? Little green men?

------------------->>

Third, if the CCCRW's had followed the universal advise given them by their own military, State Department and numerous NGO's, they would have used a military force which could have controlled Iraq and prevented the current situation.

This is a platitude, there were plenty of said officials for the plan as executed, advice becomes universal in the mind of a peacenik kook. Hindsight is convenient, and I agree, two factors would have limited the current violence, more U.S. troops, and retention of Iraqi forces (keep them off the street). Throw in the big buck construction debacle.

Ah, the "nobody told us" argument. Won't fly. Several generals told them. Planners in the CIA told them. NGO's on contract told them (and were never consulted again) Rummie et all were told many times by many sources months ahead and they chose to ignore the warnings and live in a world of make believe. Now, exactly who, outside of Rummies direct advisors and the Bush CCCRW insiders, said the plan was great? Not even Tommy Franks, who went back AT LEAST three times with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 380,000 troops.

------------------->>

Fourth, there already IS a civil war going on, and has been for some time.

Strange definition of civil war you lefties have. There certainly is sectarian violence. And the Sunnis and Shiites aren't going to love each other soon. But civil war it isn't. Now, if the unified government splits up and the Iraqi army splits up, and there is pitched battles over territory, then I will give you the civil war bit.

What's a civil war? It's not defined by the number of dead. When the citizens of a country (Iraq or US) take up arms against each other (Shia vs Sunni militias or US army vs Confederate volunteers) in order to settle political issues (control of Baghdad, oil, religious shrines, control of government or states rights, slavery, control of congress), then you have a Civil War regardless of the level of intensity of the conflict. Iraq sure looks like a civil war, and the intensity seems to be rising.

------------------->>

Fifth, a number of those bodies appear to be the result of US military forces murdering innocent civilians.....did the marines think that the ol'guy in the wheelchair was an insurgent? How about the little kids?

Yep, war is an awful thing. But you don't address my argument, just throw typical lefty claims in the air. Show me actual statistics on proved murders committed by U.S. troops (not leftist media claims), and I think you would be safer in many places in Iraq patrolled by Marines than say, Compton, Wash D.C, Trenton... Certainly you would be safer in Iraq than in Columbia.

Ah shucks, ain't war awful. Well, yes, but that's not an excuse for what the Marines did. "It's just what happens in war" is a BS excuse and it don't fly either. Cold blooded murder is what it is, and there isn't an excuse for it.....welcome to Mai Lai. About being safer in DC, r u making a pro gun control argument?

-------------retort>>
Apparently you still don't get the argument. It is not about terrorists, simply about relative levels of violence. You know, perspective. Actually, Bush haters don't care much for perspective, but that's ok. I make no claim about "terrorist deaths" anywhere, just looking at levels of violent behavior among large populations. Perspective...

On the side, you bring up the gun control thing. I would happily support the old west solution of no firearms within dense urban population centers. Hawaii, for all its socialism, does not do to bad on this point. No carry, but you can own firearms. And there is publicly accessible ranges. I am all for "Leave your heat at the door..." type of control. But that is not what gun control advocates want, so I must oppose them. And from experience in the U.K. (apparently similar in other dense urban areas with strict gun control), there are a lot of stabbings. Granted, your better off statistically with a few stab wounds as opposed to a big hole in your head, but that is a different topic.

I love the 'war is over' thing. The big lib lie machine has you hooked up. Or are you to naive to understand the difference between active combat and police actions? Actually, most lib peacenik wackos don't get that one. It part of the creed now, liberal mythology alive and well. Kind of like the "Bush stole the election" meme. How did you like that special election in the 50th Cali congressional district? Ye ole culture of corruption platform works well (sarc.). Hahaha... Heehehehhehee hahahahhaaha....

So on to the Civil War debate. You claim it is a civil war, and in your argument you use: 1) the level of intensity 2) fighting over political issues. Huh? So Columbia is in a civil war, and so is South Africa! Better throw in Jamaica too. Dang, if we get away from the per capita thing, I bet we can find civil war all over the world under your definition. The only reason you want to label it a civil war is to try and claim the critical step towards failure. Yes, critical for your philosophies political existence, and hence the tendency is to engender and support increased criticism of our Country, our Military, and our President.

Now lets see about this last point. Murder is not acceptable. If they (Marines) committed such acts, they will be prosecuted. Yet, this is a fight is it not? It is a good idea to fight Islamofascism, at least that is my position. To claim we created the problem is asinine. And to bristle at my "War is Hell" rhetoric is disingenuous. Your the one who wants to parade around civilian tragedies, and blame our forces. That is whats truly distasteful. Liberal peacenik nutters really do not see tyranny, and end up in their actions enabling such.

As to Mai Lai, if you are trying to make this Vietnam again, you must have memory loss. There is no free fire zone, no systematic policy of shooting anything that moves, no excuse for breaking clear guidelines of the modern military. Furthermore, even with Vietnam, as horrible as that incident was, there is no proof of systematic abuses. There are a whole lot of allegations (a popular pastime in the early 70's), but not much in the way of proof. I am not making lite of any abuse, but nutter claims are just that, claims. As for real, documented, systematic abuse, turn to Cambodia, or just stay in South Vietnam, in the time after we left. But peacenik nutters don't seem to be bothered by such.

Come on up to the real world. Furthermore, it isn't "the Marines" as you state, it's a few Marines, who have not even been charged yet. Oh, I see the Anbar region has been transferred to Iraqi control. A few more to go. Hey, where are all your statistics on how many murders committed by Marines? Now that I have 'ranted' some more, I leave you with this last thought: the irrational peacenik nutter platform couldn't even beat Bush in re-election, so keep at it!

Al Qaida Just a Crime Wave?

2006-06-05T11:04:00.000-10:00

Well, concerning Haditha, if we had actual facts to pass judgment, I would make a lot more of it. If the Marines involved did respond recklessly, as indicated by some, the penalty should be severe. And I think its in the best interest of the Corps to flesh it out thoroughly. However, on two accounts there is great idiocy. One, Murtha is a monster. He not only pandered politically in the most disgusting manner, but he jeopardized the fairness of the Military Justice system in this case. Doubly an idiot, he is as former of a Marine as you can get and still be breathing. On the other popular charge, of systematic abuses, which is fair game on the rhetoric side, though clearly untrue, I found some of the statistics interesting. If we have seen around 800,000 personnel in country or rotate through in three years, what should we expect? Look to per capita murder rates. Lets take the worst case, peaceful Columbia. If one third of the total deployed represent a years population, we should expect 165 murders, if it was a Colombian army. How about for the U.S.? Around eleven. Big difference! But what about within the U.S., say a peaceful place like our nations capital? Get the firearms death rate for Washington D.C. and we should expect in one year, among the military in Iraq approximately 81 fatal shootings. Even in Hawaii, which has the most repressive gun laws, you would still expect five or six shootings a year.

Of course this is just a relative observation, and we should expect our military to have a higher standard. Yet, they do have more stress, and easy access to lethal force. Whatever your take on the statistics, for any claim of systematic problems to even begin to express reality, there would need to be around ten incidences like the claims in Haditha. Now the Moonbats Cook Leftists claim such all the time, but that is their stock in trade. Realistically, there are probably a few incidences not known publicly, and a few accidents, but given the environment, and the nature of the combatants, it is very surprising how few of these situations have occurred. It is still a black mark, if true, and as stated before, we must have higher expectations of our enlisted men. Conversely, it is clearly specious and treacherous to impugn the whole military, or any branch, of systematically perpetrating such abuses. As a final thought, the per capital total for Iraq puts it squarely between Jamaica at 0.324 per thousand and South Africa at 0.496, numbers three and two on the list. So, who is screaming about civil war in South Africa? And why is there no cry for peace in Jamaica? Let alone the superior effectiveness of Colombian drug gangs (#1 on the list) versus the insurgents in Iraq. Could we now claim that Al Qaida is just a mediocre crime syndicate?

Looming Unrest Destabilizing Our Government?

2006-05-25T09:57:00.000-10:00

Ok, the title is a bit much, but I like it. Who knows what the future holds, but today's liberal mailbag has a bit of Big Brother in it to match my 'drive by media' titlle. And it will lead us to question the very fundamentals of our Constitution! Well, maybe not, but lets see where we end up:

Item one: On the local scene, the Mayor of Portland, the former Police Chief!!!, has filed a complaint with the Gestapo (the FBI) that they were trying to recruit spies in City Hall. The local gauliter in charge says there is no ongoing investigation. So…..why trying to recruit snitches? (Because Portland is sorta leftish perhaps??)

Item two: the same bunch, Henreich Gonzales Goon Squad, raided a congressmen’s office! For the first time The Leader has violated the separation of powers by actually coming up on the Hill and committing burglary and theft. Even the CCCRW Republican leadership is having a fit. Bout time!

On the first point, what does the City administration have to hide? Wouldn't they want to have liaison with federal law enforcement anyhow? And if the FBI felt the need for 'spies' in a city administration anywhere in the U.S., one would seriously wonder what was going on that prompted such action. This reeks of inanity and publicity. If it really comes about, we could have some fun, but I suspect that nothing will happen. It's way to ripe a situation if true.

On the second item, we have a very interesting situation. A congressman refused to allow the FBI access to his office. Has that ever happened before? No person seems very concerned about that. So what does the FBI do? Hmmm... The Executive Branch heads over to the Judicial Branch and gets a warrant. Then they conduct a search and viola! Screaming and ranting about the draconian tactics of the FBI. And what gets really weird, famed lib Barny Frank chastises the House leadership for complaining about a warranted search, yet doing nothing about Bush's 'domestic spy program'. Crazy! You can spy on the 'peons' without a warrant, but don't even think of touching a member of Congress, even if you get a warrant! Oh, this is going to be good.

Furthermore, what about that 'culture of corruption' meme? Seems William Jefferson (Dem), has a few issues. Is it a systematic, democratic, culture of corruption? To make things more fun, someone in the Justice Dept. leaks juicy tidbits about the current speaker of the House to ABC, who then runs a hit piece. Gee, only days after said speaker condemned the actions of said Branch of government. Does it seem that all these players have jumped off the cliff? Oh, and the Justice Dept. denies its investigation of the speaker... At least we know where the money was, in the freezer. That should solve Willy J.'s problem eventually.

My tittle seems appropriate now. If this is the focus of government, we are doomed. At least we will be entertained on our path to destruction! Ah, and I see that the Pres. has just frozen Willy's documents for 45 days, so the situation can 'cool off'. Cooler heads? Or more entertainment...

A Wonderful Source of Anti-Socialist Ammunition

2006-05-19T13:36:00.000-10:00

I had not realized that there was a repository of Ludwig von Mises extensive quotations, but even better than just finding one, it is searchable. That may not turn your crank now, but go try out the The Quotable Mises. Just put in your favorite nemesis philosophy, and let the fun begin. One of my favorites:

What pushes the masses into the camp of socialism is, even more than the illusion that socialism will make them richer, the expectation that it will curb all those who are better than they themselves are. . . . There will no longer be any room left for innovators and reformers.

Pointed, filled with balanced truth, what more do you want? I am sure to be returning to this depot in the battles ahead.

Last Chance to Save the World!

2006-05-17T12:46:00.000-10:00

Or, more aptly titled, "Those who fear change, should not study Geophysical Fluid Dynamics!" I will leave the topic after this, as my message is quite clear. Assuming you can plow through the rambling musings of my various posts on the topic. No guarantee in that. So, again, the current climate is a result of many features of the past climate. Some features are recent, some features very long time scale. Some features are geologic in nature, hence epic periodicity. I will restate myself quite clearly. If anthropogenic forces have changed recent climatic conditions, it is not provable yet. Even when we do have conclusive proof of anthropogenic impact (which will happen given growing populations and waste products), the change that we will see then could not be predicted now. This is not the same problem as dumping pesticides in a river, or strip mining, or whatever. The concept of environmental damage is far more subjective when it comes to global climate change. Global climate change is not dioxin in the water or carcinogens in a cigarette.

No one can conclusively state what is a better or worse climate for mankind. Even disasters, when they happen, as horrible as they are, have long term benefits. However, if they can be prevented, that is a great success for man. But there is no impending disaster we can predict concerning global climate change. We are just as likely to all be wiped out by a errant comet. Why is there no cultural fear of that? It has happened before, and unlike a ice age, or other climate change, happens very rapidly. Why constant fear of climate change? Is it simply collective guilt?

Some people will not accept healthy skepticism (the backbone of real science), no matter what the actual facts relate. This is a social phenomena, not a scientific one. There is a philosophy that believes man's very existence is destructive. Well, that is true. It is a Christian principal. For us to have life, something else must die (the top of the food chain is like that). But, wanton waste and destruction is not good stewardship. What conversation would you have with God? Can you ask Him what He would want most of all? More believers, more people able to live better lives and help each other? Or is God concerned with a pristine environment most of all? Noah and the flood should tell us something of God's thinking.

Apparently God was willing to destroy plants, animals, and people as punishment for their rejection of God. He then made a covenant with Noah. Very interesting stuff. With this in mind what should a Christian do about global climate change? First, have faith that God will provide for you the things necessary for survival. Trust Him, worship Him, love one another, take care of widows and orphans. Then try to be a good steward of the land. There is a lot to get right before you start worrying about buying another Chevy Suburban. So what does good stewardship mean? If it means make the land productive, that is good. Does it mean preserve the earth in a primordial state of cave man utopia? Some would believe such.

One thing is certain, we should try to not create harmful environments as we expand. Clearly that means balancing growth with cleanliness. And local and regional environs are definitely impacted by industrialization. The global climate will be impacted as well, and may be already. But what is acceptable, and what is a threat? Is nuclear energy acceptable? Not to some. Is a new landfill acceptable? Not to some. Is increased use of petrochemicals acceptable? Again, there are many who do not believe that is the correct path. But each of these has a societal benefit, and is arguably better for our modern existence than current alternatives. If there is no new landfill, dangerous and unhealthy conditions will be created in areas near high populations. If there is no new nuclear energy, more coal plants will be created to meet energy needs. And for societies use of geologic petroleum, it is irreplaceable at this point in time.

We will need to create renewable sources of petroleum. It will be a major challenge for us, and one we can meet. There is cause for concern as well. History has a number of examples of civilizations that failed to adapt and faded away. Fertile lands were irrigated with saline waters to many times, the land became unusable. Forests were utilized for fuel, and in some places, completely disappeared to this day. We will need to create technology that overcomes the limited source of cheap energy. And we may need to begin to study how to mediate our global impact if possible. All good things to pursue.

In contrast to these positive steps, there is the political morass previously discussed. There is no global enforcement of environmental laws yet. And oil is the fuel of developing nations. Without it, they will not join the western world. In contrast, some would rather see the industrialized countries shrink. This is a philosophical divide as well as inherent national competition. Another part of the divide is the economic issue.

I find it asinine when presumed 'experts' can only come up with one solution to increased demand, higher taxes. And then to claim that oil is highly subsidized in the same breath! If it is so subsidized, remove the so called subsidies and find out what the real market will support. I could just as well claim all Canadian production of anything is highly subsidized, as they have national health care, as opposed to products made in the U.S. And most 'subsidies' cited are reductions in tax rates. Gee, a lower tax rate equals a subsidy? Isn't that the same thing as a reduction in the rate of growth being a 'cut' in spending? This is the real problem, many may think they understand economics, but can not grasp the most basic smokescreen of rhetoric.

Then to claim that the oil companies are responsible for billions of dollars in pollution, caused by the end user, is equally nefarious. The same people are screaming about high gasoline prices being caused by the oil companies. Lets see, increased regulation, more spending on cleaner processes, increased price. That seems fairly clear. Then increase the price of oil, increase the demand for gas, make building a new refinery unprofitable, and you get today's price at the pump. What would bring down the price of gas? More refineries, domestic oil drilling, reduced taxation. Clearly beneficial on a national level. Yet it will not happen because of fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the unpredictable nature of global climate change.

In my perspective, this is indicative of ignorance and the global citizen mentality. But on the timescale of generations, very little damage to our societies expansion. Most western economies are past the point where petroleum costs and access constitute one of the principal governors of growth. A greater fear is the recent popularization of socialist principals throughout the world. Want something that will surely lead to human suffering? Embrace socialism.

I will personally welcome the increased funding in my area of research. My goal is to see the energy budget for the ocean closed within reasonable error in the next decade. That may sound off topic, but it isn't. We do not know were all the energy goes yet, and until we do, no ocean model will be useful for prediction. Without a accurate ocean model, no coupled atmosphere ocean model will be accurate. And if you can't get that right, you can not predict the climate. We might be able to make predictions in twenty years or so, barring some major breakthrough. And at that point, we may have technologies and energy sources to make a cleaner environment globally. It is something to attain to. In the meantime, saner heads should be supported.

The history of environmental fear tactics is sordid, and when it comes to global climate change, the MO is identical. Our real policy, worldwide, should be to dump billions of dollars into public and private research into marketable energy distribution and creation. Think of twenty years ago, when a lithium ion battery powering a pocket sized cell phone for days was science fiction. We can do the same with the automobile, though it may take thirty years. And to provide all our energy needs, we will need to think big, but it is possible to accomplish.

I will stop boring everyone with meandering thoughts on the environment now, but if I get inspired in the future, plug your ears. Please consider rejecting socialistic tendency before worrying about global climate change. That should be our real nemesis, along with it's evil sibling communism.

Expanding My Global Warming Stance

2006-05-12T14:18:00.000-10:00

I must continue the fight in the valiant front-line against scientific inanity in regards to global warming. We will begin with economics, reiterate the difference between scientific theory that has been proved vs. 'expert' speculation, and end with group think as it applies to the social dynamic of scientific funding. All in response to Tom's comment to A Chill Wind Blows Through Tokyo. However, as opposed to that piece of reasoned contemplation, we must leap from the peaks of civil discourse and delve into the gutter of political rhetoric. Otherwise, whats the point?

The accusation is thrown against me that I have a 'lack of understanding of the economic principles' in regards to this issue. Ah, that verges away from science does it not? Or is econometrics just a tool to be used by advocates of a political position? From a pure growth perspective, something quite positive in economics, unless you are interested in vitiating policies, global warming might be something to embrace! Look at the benefits of increased CO2 for agricultural crops. Do away with the growth stifling regulations that cripple many industries. The list could be extensive.

More seriously, are successful western nations supposed to throttle growth in deference to emerging industrialization? There is a big difference between so called 'global' economics, which is loosely controlled through treaties and trade agreement, taxes and resources, and the 'national' economics for which each country is intimately involved in expanding. The position of the 'global citezen' is inevitably one of fair distribution for all humanity, which sounds fine, but is actually the most unnatural and unsuccessful modern political philosophy (apart from overt communism), which is unfortunately embraced by many. Who is going to enforce these fair distributions? It is pure social liberalism, and in my view, the cancer of modern governance. We were born to compete, and in healthy competition, thrive and make great progress. Under socialism, humanity historically stagnates, why should we expect any difference in the future?

And more practically, no sane nation is going to sit back and be nice, while every other nation strives to the goal of growth through any means. Ludicrous and naive. So, while I do not have a major in economics, I have significant exposure to real economists working in various fields, both government and private sector, and have seen how economic statistics are ginned up as political tools many times. It is not that I don't understand the principal (of green economics), I just don't believe that it works. Again, to reiterate, I am not an advocate of unlimited resource abuse. But that is not common sense economics either, and should be obvious. Furthermore, I am not naive concerning non-renewable resources, but that is a separate discussion addressed previously.

Moving on to bad science. First, one greener's pollution is one gardener's growth enhancer. And if you are a geologist, the only thing that constitutes long term pollution is arguably elements that do not occur naturally. Of course we need to control pollution, but to what end? Some go so far as to claim humanity is a scourge upon life itself, and should be restricted greatly. Others simply want safe clean living spaces. Now, to the other side, some are only concerned with profitability, at any expense. There are many different issues. And each of these positions utilize scientific methods and results to justify themselves. For me, I am interested in having the most productive society with the least negative impact on livability. But what does that mean?

I will never get the chance a being the first to explore the highest mountain, the first to see the deepest depth of the ocean, or be the first to either pole. In fact, there are very few places where man has not gone on this planet. In another millenia, we may all have to fit into very high density population areas, or maybe we will move to Mars. Certainly by then, all the geologic oil will be gone and whatever impact burning it all up has will be well established. Should we prepare for that? Of course, and the best way in my view is by having continued growth and success in all areas of society, on a national level first, an then globally. Science applies to this in many ways, some regulatory, some as new technology. But for my concerns, provable science is different from statistical forecasting, which is still better than speculation, even if its from 'experts' in the field.

If a disease appears, researchers try to develop techniques and medicines to combat that disease. This clearly benefits society. It is tax money well spent, and no normal person would object. But what about the drug trials for the 'new' medicine? Some people may experience complications, some might die. If the trial is successful, the pharmaceutical company will make a significant profit, shareholders will benefit, and so will the recipients of the drug, if they can afford it. Ah, what a tangled web! But, principal to this argument if the emergence of a disease. Would it be wise to spend untold tax dollars upon a disease that was hypothetical? And what if the hypothetical disease was not shown to be deadly? Or the effects were completely unknown?

This is the state of affairs with global warming. Yes, I agree that many people have now jumped on the train condemning mankind for the catastrophic climate change, that has not happened yet. And no one is denying, again, the data on global temperature. But I will reiterate again, and again, there is no scientific provable link between anthropogenic forcing and global temperature. I must quote Tom at this point:

Based upon what I understand the bulk of climate scientists believe (including the AGU, the NAS and the chief international national academies of science), I understand that we have a sufficiently clear idea of the present and likely future consequences of human-induced climate change to justify taking modest actions now, and to try to coordinate with China and India to reduce the amount of GHCs that they can otherwise be expected to produce.

First, there is a huge difference between what someone believes, and what is proved. I don't care if it is Einstein Jr., if he says he thinks this is the case, fine. But if he says it 'is' the case, based upon some substantial evidence, then we can go validate that and establish it as verified. So from the start, the above statement is suspect. Next, we have no idea of the future of the climate. That is a provable fact. We do not know what the consequences of the global increase in temperature will be. And we do not know that that increase is anthropogenic. What actions should you take to 'protect' something you have not shown to be in danger? It is a huge lie at this point to believe any climate model conclusively. That is one of the reasons I recommended the journal article previously, but maybe I need to be more explicit.

In the article (Linday's HP), there were a number of things one should notice. If the cause of arctic ice thinning is directly global warming, why was there a local maxima in sea ice in 1987? They rightly warn, concerning the Arctic temperature, "Trends in air temperature are notoriously dependent on the interval examined." This gets to the heart of why, for every scientist who is honest, there is no definite statement about anthropogenic forcing of global temperature. It also explains the disconnect between real forecasting, and pure speculation. With trends in global temperature only well established in the last twenty years (and there is argument about that as well), predicting accurately just the temperature next year would be hard, let alone the climate.

Furthermore I would encourage every reader to at the minimum read the beginning paragraph of the conclusions. This is a good representation of the state of regional climate modeling, and as they correctly state, is extremely dependent upon the sparse data available. Now, the modeling effort is worthwhile, and seems to point to the confluence of two long term oscillations coinciding to shift the balance of ice production in the Arctic (in 1989). And, they make no prediction to the future, except to speculate. This again is common, and the speculations are the main source of climate news. The scientific results are boring, but the speculations drive the debate. Not that it is bad to have such discussions, but to create policy on such as if they were irrefutable is foolish.

In synopsis, the real research identifies a mechanism to describe the observations, and is scientifically presented as such. That initial trigger mechanism has very little connection to global temperature. Increasing Arctic temperatures (over 16 yrs) then prevent the re-thickening of the ice sheet. Again, not a direct connection to global temperature, and certainly says nothing about long term Arctic temperatures, of which we have little.

I use this example for another reason. These regional models, which are more accurate arguably, than global ones, can not predict regional climate, they are principally used to explain what we have seen, not what we will see. For the global models, the predictive ability is even more tenuous. Yet every researcher running a model such as this can run it ahead for a while and speculate on the result. Doing this usually involves guessing something which is normally provided by a analyzed data set. So the second the model moves forward into the future, all of the possible dynamics represented by the control data set are released as free relationships. In other words, the current level of modeling is very weak at long term prediction.

Most of my colleagues are not naive, and that is why they separate scientific results from speculation, even if they believe the speculation. Many of them promote personally a liberal socialist agenda, yet this does not contaminate the science. It does stain the speculation which colors the resulting dialog in regards to policy. So again we fall back to what is accurate and how should society respond to it. That response takes us into the realm of opinion. Again, before we move on, it is not established science that anthropogenic forcing has increased the global temperature. And, no one has the ability to predict future climate at this time. Even expert speculation is highly inaccurate on both points.

Now what would benefit society in terms of climate? More arable land would be good. What if that land is dominated by specific countries? Is it fair for them to have increased farming resources, and not the rest of the world? Especially if it is proved that the industrialized nations warmed the climate thus creating that wealth? Sounds ridiculous, but just as likely as vast new deserts being created by the same. Only, with the desert, it's a catchy threat, and blame can be conveniently placed. Not so with something beneficial, which is non-news. This brings us back to the medical argument. What disease are we to prepare for? What policy are we to implement to save the world? What are we saving the world from? When we know for sure what threatens us, we can prepare for it.

For example, sea level has been constantly increasing over the last 18k yr. We know (maybe) that low lying areas will be underwater at some point in the future. But how long? Even if you double the current rate (~2mm/yr) there would be an increase of 40 cm by 2100. Yes, even my grandchildren will be old, and not see much societal impact. Would I rather give them a strong safe country to live in and thrive, or reduce the inevitable (maybe) increase in sea level? Any sane person will chose the former. Not that there couldn't be dramatic and threatening changes. There is evidence of rapid onset ice ages, one of which happening now would be detrimental to society. So would complete melting of Greenland and Antarctica, with its expected ~50m increase in sea level. Neither scenario is predictable, and planning for either is foolish at this point.

None of the arguments I make are targeted to dissuade one from actively advocating for sustainable livability. I do not agree with overfishing, overpolution, destruction of green spaces, cheap suburban development, subsidized agriculture, blah blah, etc. But in each instance, there are subjective measures which weigh for and against. I do think there are far greater threats to humanity for us to focus our energy on. The fear mongering surrounding global warming is itself a threat. If society responds to perceived threats in lieu of real ones we will suffer from inefficiency and distrust. In my view, we are already suffering from the lack of common sense.

To conclude, I return to the concept of global regulation. Apart from the fact that it is unenforceable by a global body at this time, the concept itself is a pipe dream of utopiana. What should be obvious to all involved, is the inevitable use of every possible resource mankind can access, and some resources we will never see recovered on this planet in millions of years. How to move forward? I believe all factors must come into play for fundamental progress to occur. We can encourage limiting our impact, but if that process is not economically viable, it will not happen. And regulation can be a part of that, but to much regulation will delay the shift in technology, as well as encourage defiance of those regulations. So what to do in the immediate future? Fund more primary research into efficient use of non-renewable resources. Other than that, what can society do? How do you proactively deal with some tenuous future threat that does not affect you in the present?

If one was world dictator, then there could be fantastic protections put in place to preserve utopia. But I can guarantee the overthrow of that government. And the world's strongest economies are going to get stronger in the near future, so what incentive does any one of them have to stifle their own growth for the benefit of emerging nations? Furthermore, until a viable threat materializes and begins to pressure humanity from global warming, no treaty will have any impact. Not to say we shouldn't try to be clean and encourage others to be clean, but no one will stop the growth. Even as world dictator, would you want more people to enjoy a higher standard of living, or restrict growth in hopes of preventing some yet unknowable disaster? It boils down to different philosophies and what those philosophies view as beneficial for mankind.

This world dictator model is perfect to explain scientific funding as well. Lets say some dynamic scientist speculates death and destruction for all based on his research. It gets airtime because it is dramatic. Some other scientists see it as a possibility and want to find out. They head to das üat;berlord and say, "Hey, lets see if we're all going to die! Give us money, please." Some swag is distributed and the scientist go out and do the research. They find out that it is a perfectly good possibility that we all will drown, given a set of assumptions. More scientists read the research and think to themselves, "Hey, Einstein Jr. got funded, let's get some swag!" They proceed to write many proposals with the words 'global climate change' in the abstract, and by this time the whole world is eating up the possible destruction of all that is decent. As world dictator, you must please the press, who are clamoring for action to save the world, so spend some more dough. It's all fine, yet the results for the most part are greater understanding of past events and more tenuous speculation.

That is the state of the art in Climate Predictions, speculation. I am not impressed by whoever jumps on board, signs a petition, drafts a resolution, or proposes a treaty. I do think it is a good idea to fund this research. It is also a good idea to have global political debates on resources and pollution. We all breath the same air, and particulate pollution from China is in the U.S. a few weeks from production. Just as the U.S spouts gasses the world over. And smog in some cities is so bad as to create mortal health threats for residents. All things we should try and fix. Yet on the time scale of global warming, the current debate is ineffective. And the specifics regarding the science that the debate is based upon are overlooked in favor of the speculation, by both expert and lay. That is what irritates me the most. Hopefully, you the reader can extract some salient perspective from the ramblings above and demand greater proof regarding this issue. It is your economy, your jobs and future that will be impacted by undue restriction. But keep in mind that we must have progress to exist as well, so lets try to choose clean solutions to our immediate needs.

Oh So Delicious

2006-05-11T16:10:00.000-10:00

Have you ever seen a hamster dance? Well, if not your in for a treat! It's the Mohamsterdance (aarons.cc), and it is definitely not politically correct. Aaron has regained momentum, escalating the war for global free speech to a interesting place. The dead guy looks pretty perky, and gets down to some poignant music with a message. This ought to be provocative in certain freedom loving circles. Congratulations go out.

From Nutter Ranting to Scary Scenario

2006-05-11T14:14:00.000-10:00

I have to say, the idea that Iran's psychotic leaders approved of the bearded puppet's letter to Bush was a question in the back of my mind. But no more. Not if the explanation of said letter is a simple invitation to convert to Islam. Yes, one of the requirements before engaging in conflict with infidels. Think about that for a while, then check out the extended commentary from Protein Wisdom where the imagination will engage in bunker building one more time.

Questions and more Questions but to Question Faith?

2006-05-11T13:11:00.000-10:00

This is actually pretty funny, I think he is getting the hang of it. What would you answer to these four inquiries:

Questions from the news:

A. Have the Kurds really just forged an independent government? Will they take Kirkuk and the oil area around it? Is this the end of 'one Iraq'? They seem to be the only unified region in the country. Why do they fly the Iraq flag from 1958 rather than the current national flag?

B. What's with the crazy fellow from Iran going off to visit Indonesia? Are they about to strike some kinda deal? Is Iran about to export nuclear technology to Indonesia?

Is he just looking for support? Or is he out to stir up trouble?

C. What's with the DiVinci Code stuff? How come so many nincompoops think it's 'real'? Why do the "Christians" feel so threatened by it?

D. Who cares if Britney is PG again? Gee people, get a life.

I must say, if the Kurds separate, it will be messy, but they have the right to freedom just like anyone else, and if that is what they must do, we should figure a way to support it. Of course the Turks will squat cows, but as they want to be part of the EU more than they care about ethnic suppression (I hope), it will work out in twenty years or so.

Iran (read - 'the cult of the twelfth Imam') is ruled by absolute nutters. And most nutters like to spread their nuttiness. But, Indonesia is a different animal, as they have a population and economic situation that would not survive extremism without severe bloodshed. Most likely they will say, "So glad you came, have a nice trip home."

For item c: most "Christians" do not feel threatened by it, but many "Catholics" do. Now, we can argue about semantics, but here is the basic difference. To be a Christian (whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Non-Denominational, or whatever), the idea is that you personally believe that the acceptable sacrifice for the transgressions of man, communal and singular, was Jesus, the Son of God. Then you enter in to that relationship. Some Catholics (and others in whatever group you want to name), believe that God's modern dispensation is through the offices of the 'Church'. Thus, you could be a Catholic, under this description, and not be a Christian. I refer to this as Cultural Christianity, as that term is not negative and applies equally to the oldest of orders, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the more modern cults, like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons. We can further this point but it strays off topic.

So, why do people feel threatened by the DaVinci Code mumbo jumbo? Principally because the main failure in modern organized religion is in the education of the process of critical thinking as it relates to faith. If it is a matter of community support, basic moral teaching, worship and good works, the modern day believers in this country are very successful. If it is a matter of doctrine, the whole system is unbelievably whacked. I could elaborate, but I am sure you know what I mean. And the Catholics, in this regard, have the most baggage, and hence, the least solid foundation. I believe that is the root of the fear.

My personal shot back at those you lambaste who take the book and movie seriously, is if you are actually going to loose members due to this piece of entertainment, you have already failed at more critical tasks. Even someone with a tenth grade education could debunk the main points in the book in twenty minutes. It's ridiculous, yet points to a real situation in the Church (Catholic). Now I can proceed to really offend my Catholic friends by pointing out that Peter the actual person was not made the head of the Church, the rock is the "principal of the Spirit of God revealing to a man that Jesus is the Christ". That principal of enlightenment is what the Church (all believers) is built upon. In other words, you've been duped. But I have the utmost respect for many individuals who are Catholic, and are Christians by the definition above, all the way up to the current head of the Catholic organization. A man who is extremely intelligent, and insightful.

Yes, for the final point, who does care? It is sad that such a large group of people are concerned with the lives of celebrities, but that is the true pablum for the masses at this point in modern culture. All the news that's fit to print...

A Chill Wind Blows Through Tokyo...

2006-05-10T12:50:00.000-10:00

I hope the catchy hook title engenders humor. Today we respond to a comment thread that I apparently overlooked, and one that is relevant and fun. The diary is at redstate (comment #26) regarding the coming ice age. I spent a bit of time trashing my peers, but Tokyo Tom was not satisfied with that, and as his comments were evidence of more intelligence than rhetoric, I will respond in kind.

For those who have not guessed, my heat inducing commentary is volatile and at times speculative. On the other side, when it comes to science, physics, and especially geophysical fluid dynamics, we can be more precise, and rely on established work done over the last fifty years. So in that light, the following will have less heat, more solidity. But, I will refrain from primary references, and simply make 'sane' comments.

Now, Tom begins by comparing 'local' environmental anthropogenic impacts and 'global' climate change statistics. This is a common problem, and one scientist do quite often. That is not to say that some local effects could be observed globally, but until you do, it is fallacious to make the assumption. As this impacts politics and environmental regulations, some of the policies we implement are based on local assumptions, without justification for larger scale use. If this sounds like I am a advocate of reduced regulation, that is incorrect. My personal preference is for careful and common sense based maintenance of the environment we live in.

How does this relate to global warming? Tom makes the comparison between environmental science, and specifically carcinogen exposure, to the statistics used in the global warming debate. I could not agree more with identifying carcinogens and regulating them before we expose people, that is common sense. However, there are two fallacies in the comparison with global warming. One, there is no indication that a warmer globe is detrimental to society, despite all the Doom and Gloom scenarios popularized in the media. Two, there is still not a direct connection with global warming and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses. The hypothesis is there, and it is possible that we have influenced the global temperature, the problem is that there are so many factors unproven, that contribute large amounts of error to such observations, making the conclusion of direct anthropogenic influence a less than scientific conclusion.

I hope that I need not return to the same arguments surrounding all of the details. Yes, I see the temperature records, the CO2 measurements, the sea ice coverage. All of these are changing, and some of these changes may be linked to societies waste. Certainly you can link CO2 emission to industrialization. But can you then say that it is the cause of warmer temperatures? Why did the global temperature decrease from 1945 to 1975? If you can not explain that, you can not claim you know what caused the temperature to spike in the eighties and nineties. If you claim it is a factor of the PDO, then tell me how that oscillation is affecting temperature now, and in the next thirty years. It is a problem of definition as well. The global atmospheric heat content is the equivalent of the heat contained in the first meter of ocean. One meter only? Why, we could change the global atmospheric temperature simply by some long term change in ocean circulation. Yet we have sparse oceanic data to link into this picture, resulting in large model variability.

In response to Tom's aggravation about my position regarding this, I would give this explanation. It is unprincipled science that rides populist agendas simply for the chance at increased funding. And I see some of what is happening in the Climate community of scientists as exactly that. Hundreds of millions of dollars is currently going to fund this type of research, and it is still in its juvenile stages. I agree with the validity of the research, but not the current crop of ill founded conclusions. Yes, conclusions based on models that have large amounts of error, and are governed more by statistical parameters, not dynamics. Don't get me wrong, I think that these same models are indispensable, and will make a significant contribution to future choices we make as a society, but at this juncture, they are not accurate in climate prediction.

Tom asks the following:

Or are you both (i) taking issue with the scientific consensus and the bona fides all the scientific organizations that are telling us about climate change, and (ii) arguing that it is wrong for our elected leaders and others to advocate the we DO something?

Yes, and yes. I take issue with a few peoples conclusions, and a large number of scientists in the community who are perfectly willing to jump on the bandwagon instead of doing the necessary questioning of said science. Generally, science needs to be proved before policy is generated, but again, that brings us back to what policy should be. Yes, lets do something! What do you propose? First prove what you intend to legislate is going to benefit society. Hard to do if the threat has not materialized, and the factors generating the threat that has not materialized are not scientifically established fact. Beyond that, what is going to benefit society? Here we stray into the realm of global politics, and most readers can guess that if we stay here, much rhetoric will follow.

Next, the question is asked what I find convincing in terms of climate change. Well, I find it amazing that recent (last millenia) regional climatic conditions were so variable. What caused the mini ice age in Europe? Why has the glaciation receded so dramatically pre-industrialization? Are there long term fluctuations yet to be discovered in the recent climate record? The forty year Aleutian low is fascinating, how is it and similar oscillations connected to global temperature? Is there data set yet to be developed that accurately tracks solar output? We have such a short record of total atmospheric temperature, and it does not correlate precisely with terrestrial measurement, will the next twenty years show a closer fit? These are some of the questions that will give us a better picture of how our climate changes, but even answering these does not get us accurate predictions. For that, we need synoptic ocean observations, and that isn't even being planned.

Tom asks where I think we are headed. Scientifically speaking, I don't have a clue. The most accurate prediction we have right now is the six month lead on predicting El Niño. Weather and local climate is restricted to a week or less. Most other prediction have the same accuracy as the Farmers Almanac. Of course, there will be even more CO2 generated, but what does it do, and how will it affect us I can not say. The ocean is a sponge for CO2, and a sink as well. Yet, some of the water subducted at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has yet to return to the surface! How do these long term cycles change?

One statement I do not like, that many have bought into is:

The record is clear that we have had a major impact on levels of greenhouse gases, which are now at levels not seen for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years (cite later if you want it), and that this increase, even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, are going to force more climate change over the next hundred years.

The principal 'greenhouse gas' is water vapor. We do not have global long term coverage of atmospheric water vapor, and the terrestrial time series of humidity is not sufficient. If you can not characterize the most abundant greenhouse gas, how can you make the claim that we have had a major impact on greenhouse gases? Furthermore, the water vapor issue complicates many models, adding another layer of error which has not been parametrized accurately. You again assume that anthropogenic CO2 has forced climate change, and will do more in the future. It is possible, but clearly only a weak hypothesis at this point. It may be a perfectly valid hypothesis, but it is not a proved one.

Finally we need to address the Arctic, I said I wouldn't get technical, so go read Lindsay and Zhang, "The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: have we passed a tipping point?", in the Journal of Climate and see what you think. Clearly something dramatic has occurred, and one of the factors is the gradual increase in the regional temperature. But, the confluence of other factors was also needed in this modeling effort to explain what has been occurring. It will be interesting to see what occurs in the Arctic, but to asses dramatic doom for all the world is not responsible. Claims of unprecedented and dramatic changes need to be put in context. Forget about millions of years, lets talk about reasonable changes within the last ten millenia. What would you consider more dramatic, loss of permanent ice in the Arctic, or an increase in the sea level of 50 meters? That is five centimeters every 100 years, but in the context of recent history, a arguably huge societal effect. Oh, and no anthropogenic causation at all.

In closing I would like to just comment on the time scales in this debate and be an advocate of common sense approaches to policy. Clearly mankind does not plan ahead actively for multi-generational problems. It is outside our grasp to actively and constructively work on something that will not appear in our lifespan. Society on the other hand, responds to environmental pressures over long time scales in effective ways. One of those resources is primary research and education. We may study and research something that will not be understood or implemented for many generations. For instance, non-linear equations and theory were discovered in the late Victorian era, but solutions and applications did not happen until the 1960's. Couple this with the growing need of resources and energy for an increased population and we would be wise to increase our efforts in terms of science and technology. I see the emergence of new technology linked with the marketplace, and how this plays out will determine the measure of future success. We will need to address energy resources, as there is a limit to geologic petroleum. We may need to adapt to climate changes more rapidly than society has in the past. But both of these things will occur on time scales that allow for adaptation, and if not, humanity will experience a setback. Yet to predict such is the realm of fiction at this point. We need more reasonable dialog, less pandering.

Cyber Terror Redux

2006-05-09T12:00:00.000-10:00

It would seem that there are a few Islamofascist hackers out there as we have been noticing lately. Apparently aarons been attacked again, and some DDOS attacks have been perpetrated on well known hosts. Today check out The Jawa Report for a peak. For the actual retrograde minds who have sold their souls to the destructive and evil influences of Islamofascism, do something more constructive. These plebeian attempts at making a name for yourself, very weak. You have not even made the trade press in Internet security yet, let alone the mainstream media. You basically suck. Have you shaved you're anus lately? Something must be holding you back from real greatness. Think about it, what would that dead guy, Muhammad do in a situation like this? You should get some more evil inspiration soon...

I did get a bit of inspiration of my own, at the bottom of aarons hack, is the email for someone, possibly the hacker. Whois gives us Fastservers, INC. as the owner of the ip for xp020.com, although not guaranteed. A bit of mail may make 020 change his email address and/or hosting company. It's a small gesture, but simple enough:

to: abuse@fastservers.net

Are you the maintainers of the domain xp020.com? If so you may be interested in the activities of that domain with regard to the hacking of aarons.cc, a blog I appreciate. If this does not concern you disregard. The bottom of the hack page contains a "Mail To : 020@xp020[dot]com".

I wonder what the future holds...

More Liberal Justifications for War?

2006-05-09T10:42:00.000-10:00

From the mailbag we get a snippy little piece of socialist liberal journalism of the flavor BBC. Pure evil American aggressor hit piece, but the comments after the article are what set me off. Here is my reply:

It stuff like this that prove how insane and marginal you Moonbats are:

Back in 1939, had I been one Adolf Scrub Hitler (ed: Scrub = Bush), the argument would be something like this. "Poland has been threatening Germany and Germans living in Poland (as indeed they had). Germany was under threat of attack at any time. Therefore, I had the right to strike first, to defend myself. Britain and France had both promised to "come to the assistance" of Poland. They were taking sides with the aggressor!!! Therefore, I was acting defensively in attacking both of them first; to protect myself. Therefore, WW2 was the fault of Poland, Britain and France, not Germany, who was only acting in self-defense under the pre-emptive Scrub Doctrine."

First, the whole Bush is Hitler thing is not only psychotic, but extremely distaste full. More Bush hatred twisting the mind into a degenerate state. Second, by your inane argument, Hitler would have insisted on free elections in Poland by 1942, oh wait, he simply enslaved them all. So, Neville, what does constitute a threat? I missed the part where the Poles encouraged terrorist acts in Germany...

Now regarding the issue of the article, do you not think the more important question is the legality of Iran's nuclear activity? Is that not the real question? Or have Liberals embraced a world with unfettered nuclear proliferation... Furthermore, if liberal idiots are perfectly willing to ignore nuclear proliferation by nutters, what grounds have they to claim any illegality under 'international law', which has now become a joke, of the U.S. or Israel actually enforcing non-proliferation? Of course this in itself is a joke as Israel does not exactly comply with nonproliferation, but then again, not many Israelis proposing as their national focus the destruction of a neighboring country.

I see in the article that the reason there would not be a Security Council resolution authorizing force is the obviously peace loving ChiComs and Russians. Why is that? Saving the world are they? From the evil George Bush? Or maybe they are making a tidy profit equipping Iran with they technology necessary to fulfill there nuclear ambition. The author is a dense brick. Why do so many journo's end up siding with communists? Hmmmm... But to reinforce the propagandists point of view is this delicious excerpt from the article:

Ms Wilmshurst accepted that Israel might regard itself as threatened, given the remarks made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But she added: "Israel would have to take an objective, realistic view as to whether there was a real threat, and I am doubtful at the moment."

You have found a friend Neville! The epitome of insane peacenik Moonbats. Doubtful indeed. Yes, lets take an objective, realistic view of a psychotic megalomaniac, who is threatening to erase you and all you're relations from the planet, and come up with the conclusion there is nothing to worry about. Brilliant! Give her a Nobel Peace prize! And people wonder why the contempt for liberal socialist peaceniks grows daily...

Socialism Fails Again

2006-05-08T16:06:00.000-10:00

I am happy to report that the most liberal socialist state in the union has tested another socialist program and found that it fails miserably. Yes, the gas cap is gone! Not that I, the consumer, will notice. Why? Well, we consistently had the highest gasoline price before the gas cap, during the gas cap, and now that its gone, the trend will continue. What is especially galling, is the fact that we could have cheap gas, but the collusion of true monopoly and tax happy government is a stranglehold on a population that more than tends towards sheep-like socialist liberal behavior. Let me explain. Our tax per gallon is well over fifty cents. That puts government in the pocket of more gas sold. We have two refineries. Hence the competition is negligible. For instance, some airlines actually ship their own jet-fuel here, which they find cheaper than purchasing from the local refineries. Why can we not ship gas here? We are toast. Plebeian fools, who refuse to grow some common sense.

On the good side, when something fails, everybody gets antsy and the legislature kills it off, slinks away to their lair, and dreams up some new scheme to save us from ourselves. If I sound pessimistic concerning our political representation, I am. There is no concept of conservative values in politics here. And we have our own special 'culture of corruption', simply from the historical plantation mentality that pervades the community. The plantations are gone, simply replaced by a government who fills the role. Fortunately, when we go fill our tanks in the future, we can at least delude ourselves that the market is working.

Coldest Day On Record, Where is the Global Warming?

2006-05-03T12:58:00.000-10:00

Yesterday we had the auspicious honor of the coldest day on record for that date (May 2) here in Honolulu. Yes, we suffered by at a high of 76° and a low of 60°, oh my, fire up the furnace! Get out the sweaters! How can this be with global warming beating down the door? Well, the Old Grey Hag does some science reporting, and today they report on a report. Yes, here is more proof of questionable science pandering to politicians who are brow beat by a nutter green media. In the report, they claim that discrepancies have been resolved with the twenty some years of satellite data that showed little tropospheric warming as opposed to the surface temperature. First, the satellite data sets are still in disagreement with surface temperature, but now the anomalies are positive and reasonably associated with other data. It still leaves in question what drives the earths atmospheric temperature although they make the claim that other measurable sources can not account for the increase of the last fifty years. Yet, if you took the same data from 1945 to 1975, you would have to explain what drove the decrease in global temperature. Anyhow, for more contrarian viewpoint for the layman, check out JunkScience on Global Warming, and a specific response to the report.

The Cyber Shots Heard Round the World?

2006-05-02T16:30:00.000-10:00

If you haven't been following the very real and nasty attacks against freedom perpetrated upon one of our cyber LRRP leaders ('lurps' tend to be the unsung front-line in modern war -real lrrps-), you need to get informed! Aaron has been surfing the friendly Islamic websites of love and come up with a few admirers. Yes, if you don't think its a culture war, you are in the cozy couch surrounded by Bud Light and Cheers reruns. We will all have to fight against a large population of otherwise peaceful Muslim's who in their core beliefs sympathize with these throwbacks to the Dark Ages. They will be successful in polarizing a large population, and we need to combat their effectiveness. One such method is to support the front-line, so go read more about Aaron's exploits. Battlefield promotion in the 101rst Fighting Keyboardists is in order.

Eternal Burning Oil Slick

2006-05-02T14:23:00.000-10:00

We must close out the oil trilogy with the ridiculous defense of religious slurs used in part two of the series on liberal ignorance and big oil. Here for your continued enjoyment is the poetic prose:

Religion is related because
Ignoring the developing oil crisis,
Denying the reality of global warming induced by industrialization,
And believing in the second coming
Are all
'Magical Thinking'
And therefore
Dangerous
Useless
And make the situation worse, not better.

I must reply is 'magical science' a religion? If so, then I agree. Again, all three points are incorrect.

1) Is there really a immediate oil crisis? No. Lots of hype, rhetoric, and ignorance. Our per dollar GDP spending on energy has decreased in the last thirty years. Fluctuations in the price of crude are entirely consistent such a market and with long term inflation. Could we be seeing a period where energy costs begin to increase above the very cheap energy we have been enjoying? That is a reasonable scenario. None of this negates the fact that we will have to develop new sources of energy at some point in the future, and it is prudent to research that now. I am just repeating myself at this point...

2) Has so called 'global warming' been caused by industrialization? There is no concrete evidence that global temperature is directly correlated to anthropogenic CO2, how many times do I have to repeat that? And the scientific community seems to have swallowed the blue pill on this one. A good example of what I mean is expressed by Dr. Lindzen in this opinion piece. He is not alone in his concern, as many very green (enviro wacko) faculty across the land are beginning to question the validity surrounding these dire and ludicrous claims of climatic destruction.

3) The real second coming came and went. It would take a while to explain, but as you don't believe anyhow, why now do you attribute Victorian era Christian mythology to me? Don't jump in the mud without boots on.

A real danger is scientist making 'pie in the sky' predictions to go along with pop culture hype. They should know better. Part of it stems from the avenue of funding (congress) where there are very few scientists and in order to secure large scale funding, you must create a viable threat to civilization. With wiling accomplices in media, the unholy trinity is secure (money - power - influence). For many recent moons, if you did not include 'global climate change' in your proposals, you receive little attention. Forty years ago it was 'Nuclear Winter', twenty years ago it was 'El Niño'. Society will accept spending money on things they fear. They rarely spend large amounts of money on projects that do not capture the imagination.

Which conveniently brings us back to alternative energy. There is a concerted effort now to investigate new large scale sources of energy. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) was a hot topic for the last few years. In principal there is massive amounts of energy in the temperature difference between the deep ocean and the surface. That difference represents many gigawatts of sustainable energy, yet the cost of recovery and environmental impact are unknown and assumed to be immense. Fusion is a future hope of many, yet the cost and time to achieve viable production is daunting. Solar is clearly un-implementable in very large scale. Bio-fuel is similarly stuck in the small scale category.

Where does that leave the imagination? Who knows what discovery, whether principal or engineering, is just around the corner. But the reality of energy needs are immediate, so what is the best choice? Clean Nuclear is what will bridge the gap in my view. Reprocessing existing 'spent fuel' and generating electricity at the same time just sound right. Using that to crack water and then replace many of the large petroleum users with hydrogen is a very attractive path. Roll out of safe hydrogen delivery on a large scale will take decades though. Whatever happens, the same debate will occur, with the same lack of common sense economics. In that prediction I am certain.

More Oil on the Fire

2006-05-01T15:06:00.000-10:00

I got a nice response to the oil article (here), although it is a bit strange. So what follows is the standard call and response, recorded here for your enjoyment!

So, let me confirm that the following is REALLY the position of the CCCRW (ed -crazy christian conservative right wing):

Uh, what does any of this have to do with religion? You're knee jerkin'....

1. Despite the fact that China, India and others are expected to experience a sharp increase in oil consumption, and the increase in US oil consumption is expected to continue, while at the same time both US and world ability to produce oil has peaked and is expected to decline, the CCCRW has come to the conclusion that: 1. There is no oil crisis. 2. Even if there is a crisis, the combination of technology and the so-called 'free market' will instantly solve it. 3. The environment doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.

First, the peak argument has never been proved. Its a theory, and not fact. The worlds oil producers are no where near the hypothetical peak. I never implied that a solution would be instantaneous, just as the current problem is not 'instantly' a crisis. And on the third point, you're very naively grasping for a straw man to attribute my position, besides, Jesus already came back, no need to wait.

2. There is no such thing as global warming. And even if there is, it certainly has nothing to do with the internal combustion engine. And even if it does, it won't be so bad because it has happened before. And, if it does get bad it doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.

Again, I made no claim about there not being any global warming. There is global warming, and there is global cooling. Currently, there is no scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 output and the global temperature. Anyone who makes such a claim is not being honest with themselves or the data. That is not to say that there couldn't be, it just isn't provable at this juncture. Furthermore, if you do not know what the global temperature was when its was 'good' or 'bad' for human civilization, why would you constantly expect DOOM and GLOOM? To the last, Jesus, again, has already returned.

3. The last thing we want to do is actually cut back on oil use, sometimes called conservation, because that would hurt the profits of the oil companies (and a half-dozen or so countries, most of which support terrorism, but that is another matter)since big business is sacred and the back-bone of 'our economy'. The best solution would be to go to war and take over the oil producing countries. And, if things go wrong (where IS that Iraqi oil?), it doesn't matter, because, you guessed it, Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.

Here, you missed the point. It is economically impossible to stop China and India, or whoever else in the world wants to buy oil. What your ilk propose is self vitiating for sentimental insanity. If we really needed to go to war for oil, we would invade Canada, our largest supplier. You socialist nut-jobs need to get a bit of an edumacation. Oh, Jesus already returned I might add.

4. Yes, there is a tax on gasoline. Last time I looked that's how the USER pays for the highway system. It is a USER fee. If you don't drive your car, you don't pay the tax. Commercial interests, of course, pass the tax burden on to the consumer in the cost of the product you buy.

Cost of a gallon of gas as follows: April 2006, State of California--
Marketing Costs and Profits -$0.01
Crude oil cost 1.65
Refinery Cost and Profits 0.84
State and Local Taxes 0.23
State Excise Tax 0.18
Federal Excise Tax 0.18
Total per gallon cost 3.07

That's $.59 per gallon in taxes, or 19.2% of the total cost. All of the Federal tax goes to the FHWA for distribution to the states for highway projects. All or most of the state/local money is handled the same way--it goes for highways. Now, if you want to get rid of those taxes, tell me how you plan to pay for the highway system? Which, by the way, speaking of the Interstate Highway system, is now forty years old to fifty years old and requiring a lot of upkeep. In Oregon, for example, we have hundreds of bridges whose life expectancy has been reached and require replacement. But, if you want, we can get rid of the taxes and simply shut down the highway system......

No, you misunderstood the point, again. I am combating the idiots who write drivel, and trying to persuade the 'sycophants in waiting' that such drivel is dishonest, obnoxious, and just plain wrong. I have no problem paying for highways. The problem is when class envy socialist claim that big oil is screwing the little guy. Hence, if you as a consumer were aware of how much you pay in taxes on gasoline, you will realize how ridiculous the undue profit claim is. But, since we are on the point, why is it called a user fee instead of a tax? More hiding in the bushes. And how come I, as a gasoline consumer, have to subsidize the transportation of goods for the masses of those who do not consume gasoline? The great urban unwashed (those who don't drive) are not carrying their fair share.

Now then, about alternative energy sources to replace oil. Largely, this means a way of either replacing the automobile with some other mode of transportation, or fueling an automobile in some other way. Who is going to pay to develop these alternatives? Not big oil! Who is stupid enough to fund the competition? Must be the Feds are going to do it. And where to the Feds get their money? From taxes. Ah, but you're against taxes, so out with that program! So....you and the other CCCRW's have painted yourselves into a nice corner. No taxes, no alternatives, increased consumption as production declines and irreversible global damage. You'd better hope that Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything peachy keen!

I am not against taxes, just undue taxation. Within your argument is exactly the point. Why would oil companies, who are competing against each other, spend money researching alternative products that will not be competitive in the market? You don't get the fundamental aspect, if it is not cheaper that petroleum, it will not sell. If you force the U.S. to use more expensive, unproven energy sources, it will slow our economy. This is the equivalent of providing cheap oil to our national competition. Not smart. My point was simple, yet must have been filtered in the socialist brain. When oil actually does become expensive, alternative energy sources will increase. Oh, and I still do not get how you thought this was some religious argument, pretty weird.

The Physical, The Meta-Physical, and The Ridiculous

2006-05-01T14:45:00.002-10:00

From time to time it behooves one to contemplate the essential nature of existence, some do this more than others, some not so much. Today we do it with the thought in mind of God's physical parameter space and requirement for human communication. In the seminal texts, God presented to man a way, physically, of approaching and drawing near. For instance, God gave clothing to Adam and Eve, He accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and developed that theme (the old dispensation) with the principals of the Mosaic Law.

The natural progression to the perfect sacrifice fulfilling this paradigm seems intuitive, does it not? And as a believer in that perfect love, I couldn't be more convinced. However, there are those who do not embrace this view (those poor lost souls...), and we need to contemplate on what kind of hope they have. First we turn to a question I have always had in regard to modern Judaism, then proceed on to question Muslim sanity. I must admit, it looks bad, but hang in there, and hate me if you want.

For the modern Jew: how do you get close to God without making a physical sacrifice? I mean, if you are still living under the Mosaic dispensation, you have to enter into the 'holiest' place through the sprinkling of blood for purification. Do you not believe this anymore? Or has God changed the way He interacts with you? Or are we (the collective Zionist wackos) waiting for the rebuilding of the Temple? What happens if you die before the Temple is rebuilt? Inquiring minds want to know. I ask this in earnest concern for your eternal destiny, as I see no indication in the Pentateuch where you have access to God without sacrifice.

Well, now that we ticked of my friends, we can move on to the Muslim faith. What are you people thinking? You have to follow a bunch of archaic laws, orient yourself geographically five times a day, and all for a tenuous dead guy. Were is the fun in that? Do you really think God cares about a certain place on the globe? And if He did, why would you think it would be out in the desert, and not in Antarctica, or Greenland? Anyhow, it appears there is a slight problem with Muslim space travel, pretty hard to stay pointed in the right direction!

Now for the finishing touch, for those who are interested in where Christians (well most of them, theoretically) believe the 'Holy of Holies' has run off to. If you remember, the priests had to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice within the inner tabernacle in ye olde dispensation, purifying themselves before entering in to the most holy place. Christ was offered up outside the city, and the blood spilled on the ground. If you have a ear to hear, then you will probably realize that in the new dispensation, God considers ever inch of the planet as a acceptable place to purify yourself and enter in to Gods presence.

In this light, I would remark unfavorably again towards the misguided Zionist. If you are a Christian, you should ask God whether He cares about any special place on the planet. In my opinion, the current 'Holy Land' is a place of misguided conflict. This un-Zionist view brings up the question of the vast misinterpretation of the book of Revelation and its application to modern times, but we will have to defer that discussion. Again, God cares not for Mecca, and even less for Jerusalem. His concern is for all men, and in that light, has given us a path to approach Him personally, one that each can pursue anywhere they are, and whatever direction they are facing. (...stepping down from the pulpit...)

Liberal Oil Solutions Aren't

2006-04-28T17:36:00.000-10:00

I find it encouraging that we can get the expected response from socialist journo's repeatedly on any number of issues, today it's oil again. What would you guess the response to be? Not raise taxes? You win a prize! In my inbox is another forwarded Old Grey Hag oped about oil and politics. The current prescription is the same as the old one, raise taxes and force people to buy government mandated cars. I'm for encouraging more efficiency, which would be a natural progression for auto makers if this really was a 'crisis' as in the seventies and eighties when inexpensive, more efficient cars from Asia took the legs off the Detroit dinosaur. But as it isn't a 'crisis', SUV's seem to be selling fine and more government mandated 'alternative' cars will just muck things up and slow the market, not solve the 'crisis'. Henceforth, I will assail the taxation solution, and leave the 'green' cars for another day.

When did a increase in taxes ever result in anything but more government and economic sluggishness? Think hard... Ok, never. The argument for oil goes something like this: alternative sources of energy are expensive, therefor we must increase the cost of gasoline to promote new sources of energy. Sounds great if it wasn't fraught with the same problem any socialist policy is shackled with economically. This ball and chain is insurmountable, yet never addressed by the populist emotionally driven environmentalist. What is this flaw? No free market responds positively to increased taxation or regulation.

Now, I am not a advocate of unlimited growth or wanton pollution, but the current 'climate' of fear and dread concerning the petroleum industry has created a weird state of affairs. This nations largest companies have recorded record profits, yet they are assailed by the socialist left. Shareholders are seeing the fruits of energy stocks that have been pummeled in the past, and this should be applauded. What is extremely grievous in this equation is the government, both national and local. Why you ask? No other mainstream commodity is taxed like oil.

Lets do something really smart. Educate the population concerning simple economics and show the effect of undue taxation. Pass a law that requires gas stations to post the price of gas pre-tax. Yeah, that's right, you would see gas at say $2.40 a gallon, fill up the Prius for twenty-four bucks, but the bill comes to thirty! It gets better when you look at those huge profits recorded recently by oil companies. The profit margin hovers around ten cents per gallon for gas, that's five to one in favor of the government. Then the government wallops a big chunk of change in corporate taxes on the profit, and presumably will get some more in capital gains as the underlying stock increases in value. Recent statements on Exxon's (libs only hate Walmart more) fourth quarter put their profit at eight billion dollars, and the federal government's take on the underlying oil at eighteen billion dollars. They should be jumping for joy instead of jumping for the pseudo-enviro-carrot vote.

Curious in this is the large stake in Exxon by certain government union pension plans. But that is a digression, the real travesty inherent within the debate is how separated the socialist philosophy of the emotionally driven pseudo-environmentalists is from the proverbial core beliefs of traditional American identity. Inevitably, America is demonized in this group, and their identity as American citizens is distorted. It's the 'Global Citizen' syndrome again, which has its roots in pure socialist thought. Again, sounds great, makes one feel good, and is in its application pure folly.

We can pursue alternative sources of energy, and in time we must. Concurrent with that, we can encourage clean use of energy and positively reinforce efficiency. To do such successfully there is a practical aspect we must respect, a fundamental driving dynamic that is part of America's amazing progress that must be built in to and highlighted in any future planning regarding petroleum. But that is not in the playbook for the left and their Grey Sheet propagandists. It is not in the mold of 'alternative' anything, and sells no paper. I wonder if ink prices have risen?

As for the reality of oil, I am not a geologist, or an economist, but have communicated extensively with both professions in an academic context and come away with with the following conclusions. First of all, the price of oil per barrel would need to stay near sixty dollars a barrel for a extended period of time (years) to institute secondary recovery well production. The amount of oil available at that price point is extensive, though not unlimited. When that happens, some of the bio-fuels and shale oil processes become economically viable. At some point in time past that, much more expensive recovery becomes viable, and other alternative energy products will be entering the marketplace. Each of these scenarios will have environmental impacts, and be spurned by nutters. But the time scales are generational, and not out of sink with historical sources of energy and their life cycles.

The global environmental impact of petroleum use is unknowable regardless of what is reported in the news, and will not be 'discovered' in the near future. But the climate has been much warmer than now, and much colder in recent history. It has warmed and cooled rapidly before as well. In fact, it was very warm periods that produced the oil we use today. Arguably, a warmer climate will with the current position of the continents would support more terrestrial regions for farming. But many coastal areas could see dramatic changes. The climate could rapidly cool as well. It is foolish speculation at this point. And to expect all of the world to conform to ideologues expectations regarding petroleum use is asinine, especially based on climatic speculations.

Conversely, encouraging efficiency in the use of petroleum is a very viable pursuit. We should use government resources to research efficiency. Just as we should research alternate sources of energy. However, large scale implementation of these discoveries will occur when they become economically viable, not when they are forced on the market. To forcibly implement is folly as a nation, and impossible globally. Hopefully more sane debate can occur in the media as well, since hype in part is what drives short term market fluctuations. However, those same peaks are fodder for pundits...

Those Freedom Loving Islamic Hackers?

2006-04-27T12:58:00.000-10:00

I just realized that one of the blogs in my roll (aarons.cc) has garnered some attention of particularly odious nutters. It seems that he has irked some technically savvy hate mongers who have hacked his site multiple times. Others noticed before I (of course), notably sugiero and moxie, so go there and duly notice. Now, as for the free speech, Muhammad the dead guy apparently didn't appreciate it. So now some of his nutter followers practice anti free speech. Imagine that. My note to all Islamic Fundamentalists: get out of the dead guy cult as soon as possible, or be prepared to spend a cold dark eternity. Free people will prevail. Although I personally don't engage in book burning, when its very cold, the Quran lights easily. And if you run out of tp in the woods, I hear some versions are like Charmin. Go Aaron!

Greasy Speculation Spurring Slick Politicos?

2006-04-27T10:14:00.000-10:00

Has anyone considered how easy it would be, even if unorganized, for speculators to prompt the ridiculous debate among our elected finest concerning the price of gasoline? To me, it appears obvious, especially considering the governments addiction to gasoline taxes. If we really saw how much we had to pay in tax every time we tanked up, the population would be infuriated. But, those costs are safely insulated in the price, leaving our finest idiots to attack Big Oil with impunity. This in turn, keeps the market jittery, which is especially beneficial to speculators. Maybe its just my crackpot conspiracy theory, however, I read something supporting this claim from the Qatar Oil Minister about oil dropping fifteen dollars a barrel, if politicians would just shut up. Now that is interesting...

Hu's Leader of an Evil Cult?

2006-04-27T09:31:00.000-10:00

Who could resist Hu, current revolving puppet of the worlds most evil cult, when he is trying to persuade? Apparently, our fine President has enough spine to refuse Hu's persuasion when it comes to labeling the Falun Gong an 'evil cult'. Of course, no one suspected Hu would not like the Gong! But, title of worlds most evil cult has already been taken by the Party. Yes, Hu's party. How many people have the Falun Gong murdered? How many forced abortions have they done? How many people have they enslaved? Zero on all counts. Gee, they don't even register on the 'evil cult' meter. Not so for the cult of communism, especially as practiced by Mao. Yes, the über cult of Mao tops the charts for most evil cult in all history. Not to say that some upstart, like Islamo Fascism, could unseat the major player, but it would take real effort to get past the likes of Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin! And these boys were just playing in the sandbox compared to Mao, think about that for a moment. So, Hu knows what hypocrisy Hu speaks of, maybe.

Think About Anonymity

2006-04-20T16:01:00.000-10:00

I enjoyed this train of comedy in its entirety. If you have not followed the threads and read in detail the comments, stop now and enjoy, then come back. Done rolling on the floor in hysteria? Good. Now what does it mean to have a pseudonym online in the context of talking to or about yourself? I mean, I will have to log in as Karl Feuerstein and praise my witty creativity when I finish, just to see how it feels. I have multiple personalities online, but they have not met, yet... Oh, what a tangled web. Carlos, its time for your therapy session with Dr. Krugmeyr. And stop talking to yourself!

A Slump for Politics

2006-04-12T13:58:00.000-10:00

I have been heavily occupied with work, and in this sorrowful condition, politics is like poison. Yet is it the case of internalization? Or is something more sinister at work? I can get behind efforts to slam the socialist left. I can be jubilantly positive about superior Supreme Court appointments. Even on topics where divergence with our republican leaders occurs, such as spending, I remain fervent. But in the current season of love, the political weather is beyond my endurance.

The primary topic of distortion at the moment is Illegal Immigration. It can be summarized with a few catchy slogans like "No Illegal Left Behind" and "Alien Voter Enrollment Act". Sickening. The pandering politicos in the Senate are the worst abusers, on both sides. The situation is so distasteful, I have not the heart to engage a dialog.

The secondary smoke filled obscurity hinges on the "National Security" debate. Which, again, has become unhinged and is simply viewed by opponents as opportunity to make political advancement. God bless our troops, who are fighting for a brighter and more secure world. May coals be heaped on the empty heads who authorized that noble action and now use it for whatever political ambition suits the day.

I have already gone to far, my psyche needs renewal in the arena of rhetorical inferno. I think the American people are tired of politics, especially the politics of Doom and Gloom, and need re-invigoration. Who will step up to the plate and bring us the vision of a bright and noble future? Who will but on the mantle of Reagan? Rise up! Bring us hope and sanity in Washington!

Fun with the Next Piece of BushLied&trade

2006-03-02T17:57:00.000-10:00

So I receive in my inbox a snippy little piece on how Bush knew the levee's would break beforehand and did nothing. Oh, did I forget that the tape proves it? Anyhow, it does get humorous, so here was my reply:

Your reaction to non-news is heartwarming. Proof that Rove's masterplan is still working. The more Moonbats we can get to discount the President's intellect the better! As for the 'shocking tape', the whole country knew the same thing for days, and in fact every time a hurricane approached N.O. for the past thirty years news anchors have salivated about the levees beforehand. The real question is who leaked the tape. Is this Mr. Browns 'Brown Parachute'?

Chertoff to Brown - "Get under the bus..."
Bush to Chertoff - "Doesn't look to bad under there..."
Brown to Bush - "I'm gonna tell my mommy!"
Nagin to Bush - "That's not my Bus..."

I love the part about the 'Brown Parachute' and 'not my Bus', but my humor and brilliance was wasted (the lib replies):

So.... If 'everybody knew' why didn't FEMA actually do something? I mean, other than keeping the Red Cross OUT of the area for days afterward. (and the ham operators too, for that matter. They had no communications in the storm area, but would not let our Mobile comm vans in to set up comms at city/county/state Emg Ops Centers that had no power, telephone or radio) First time that had ever happened...caused quite stir in amateur circles!!!

Why is it that you guys reaction is always to look for conspiracy theories, blame the media for saying anything, and try to backfill the political blame? Maybe the CCCRW's should actually try running the country, other than into the ground, that is.

I had to reply tho that! Way to much fun. I mean, on this topic, claiming conservatives are looking for conspiracy theories! Heck, Brown even threatened the W.H., so my humorous comment was twisted into a conspiracy theory accusation that has nil validity. Anyhow, thus is my reply:

Whooaaa Nelly!

Huh? Who is making up the conspiracy theories? You can't be serious about this? Not with Oprah, Farrakhan, J.J. and every other liberal idiot screaming anything from racism to Chenney bombing the levee. Blame the media? Yeah, just for being the same old source of no news. You of course know that the 'media' had similar tapes months ago and didn't report on them cause they felt it showed the pres actually responding properly. Of course we can disagree, but the group who is running the country into the ground appears to be filled with Moonbats and loonies. Still the same thing from the left, no answers, no solutions, just Bush hatred and vitriol. Have you taken a gander at this shocking revelation, in 'tape' form, of Blanco denying any breach to FEMA? How come your knickers aren't in a twist about that? Man, that little blue pill works wonders...

In closing, I would just like to emphasize, without a sense of humor, what are we? Empty shells, Moonbats, and generally filled with malaise. So put a little humor in your day, and keep your mental health.

A Thought About Science and Inspiration

2006-03-02T10:41:00.000-10:00

I read today about NASA putting on hold or cutting some of its smaller science missions to divert money to the ISS, Shuttle replacement, and the quest for Mars. I see this funding debate quite often among my peers, and think it is necessary. However, I am not sure of a answer. If we look back into history, the projects that inspired the next generation of scientists were visionary and pushed the boundaries of what man is capable of. One could not say the same for the ISS. And replacing the Shuttle is not very romantic either. Yes we need a cheaper, more reliable vehicle for transporting ourselves to space and back, but it will just be another rocket. In essence, nothing new. Its the same for the ISS. Yes, its bigger than MIR or Spacelab, yet its the same thing in my mind. And I am pretty confident that if my inner child is not enthralled, there are not many young men and women who are.

Humans, and especially Americans are searching for bold aggressive new explorations of our world, not more features on a old paradigm. Now, one of NASA's least expensive projects is benefiting mankind in amazing ways, but not very exciting. I refer to the joint project with the Europeans to measure globally the sea level. Very few people are jumping up and down about how exciting that is, yet it has pushed our knowledge of climate change from next to nothing fifteen years ago to hundreds of Global Climate models predicting changes on many scales today. It was, and is, the meat that continually fed a juvenile science through puberty.

Our ruminations on the topic of science as conservatives should be along these lines. Balancing the desire of the people, the passion for National advancement, against the need for primary science which does not relate to the general population on any simple cultural level, yet is fundamentally beneficial and cost effective. I believe that this benefit of science and technology is tremendous for our continued dominance as a Nation. We should be pouring buckets of money into all areas of hard science, but to do that, we need some projects that do capture everyones interest. Who didn't go to the Mars Rover website and view the incredible images there? We need a few more efforts like that. For all the hundreds of billions we spend on entitlement social programs, what do we get? Yet the annual budget of NASA is less than twenty billion. The people get what they ask for, so lets make then interested in getting more science instead of questioning the value of projects that inspire few. Government funding of this type is very consistent with my view of our country, as it encourages the cooperation of many businesses, spins off new markets for advanced products, and strengthens our national pool of talented citizens. As conservatives, we should recognize and encourage the use of our tax dollars in this way, at least that is my biased opinion as a scientist.

A Grudge Match?

2006-02-27T16:40:00.000-10:00

Looks like the Old Grey Lady is trying to take the gloves off. Do you think it is a good idea? A nice lawsuit against the government should perk up everyone in the newsroom cesspool, but will it help 'sway' the vast collection of Americans who like to see the government pursuing intel against terrorists? And what if it appears (rightly so) as a petty attempt to appear the victim of the Imperial Government Agencies of Doom, lead by the insidious Emperor Bush? There is a separate machine in action as well, the plodding cash vacuum that is the Justice department. But, lets root for them this time and hope for a glorious, long, and leaky investigation into the Grey Ladies Courtier. Nothing reaches the heights of entertainment like the news becoming the 'news'.