Oklahoma State Senator Frank Shurden, a Democrat, and long time defender of cockfighting, has introduced legislation that would require cockfighting organizers to fit gamecocks with little boxing gloves, to protect chickens from getting hurt.

Normally, roosters use their pointed spurs to stab their opponents to death. In many cases, organizers outfit roosters with metal spurs or blades to enhance the action. Shurden proposes to instead place padded gloves over the spurs to prevent injury. Because the losing cock always dies, and because of the unregulated gambling that takes place in these matches, cockfighting is illegal in all states but Louisiana and New Mexico.

Before the ban, cockfighting generated more than $100 million in revenues each year in Oklahoma. Shurden's legislation not only attempts to make cockfighting non-lethal, but also to regulate the gambling in such a way that the State can cash in on the popular sport.

My thoughts on this are just because cockfighting is illegal doesn't mean that cockfighting has stopped. It's still going on, except that it has gone underground. It's kind of like drugs. You can't stop it. So, you may as well legalize it, and allow the State to get a piece of the pie.

As for the little boxing gloves, I suppose it's actually a good idea if you want to attract wider audiences to the sport. Though, I would like to see them wear little padded headgear on their noggins!

As appalling as it may seem, high school students do not appear to favor freedom of the press. A recent survey indicates that high school kids see this freedom as a second rate issue and many actually believe the First Amendment to the United States Constitution goes too far in allowing newspapers to publish stories without governmental approval.

What in the world has created this situation? Our teachers are doing us a grave disservice. They've spent so much time and effort to inculcate the liberal view that the children do not understand why the press should be free. I blame this on biased reporting from both the left and the right. Of course there is so much more reporting period from the liberal (what the hell is progressive?) point of view so obviously more of the blame falls on the shoulders of the Dan Rathers of the world but righties need to consider this too. If we do nothing else for our children, we must set a decent example and teach them the important foundational principles on which their freedom and prosperity rests.

Armando, who blogs on DailyKos, one of the biggest liberal blogs around, takes a pessimistic view of the Iraq Election:

This Election is simply, in my estimation, an exercise in pretty pictures. Why? Because Elections are to choose governments, not to celebrate the day. Are the people elected capable of governing Iraq at this time? Without 150,000 U.S. soldiers? Or even with them? I have been accused of gloating by people right HERE because of my focus on the continuing violence. But my focus has been on the realities of governing a land in chaos, in the midst of civil war, with 150,000 U.S. soldiers the only force with the ability to provide security. And this is 2 years after the invasion.

I hope I'm wrong on this. I think I am not.

I want to first admit, that I knew liberals would have something pessimistic to say about this, because after all, liberals seem more interested on booing the Bush Administration than helping their fellow Americans.

But I think Armando missed the whole point.

What the Iraqi people did was state their intention clearly that "we the people" will choose the direction of Iraq, and not Osama bin Laden.

Absolutely Iraq has a long way to go. It took 13 years from when the United States declared its Independence to when it adopted The Constitution. But I don't expect liberals to buy this argument.

Before the polls opened, we didn't even know if Iraqis really cared to vote. But not only did they come out to vote, they did so under the risk of death. Didn't Armando see this?

I would like to ask Armando, if he is even reading this, would he prefer to see Iraq suceed as a Democracy, or revert back into tyranny? If he would like it to succeed, what can the United States to do help it?

The AARP mounted an attack today against Bush's proposed changes to Social Security. Of course, Bush hasn;t really said what it is he would like to do with SS. Rather he has broadly stated that he thinks private accounts for a portion of new monies would benefit tomorrow's (or 2040's) senior citizens. It is really up to Congress to frame the issue and the needed repairs. But the AARP is opposed to the changes, whatever they are.

So what is the AARP, anyway? Once they were an insurance company. Now they are an advocacy group or lobbyist? Then why are they still selling insurance? I just saw a commercial by them which was marketing some sort of life insurance plan. Maybe the feds ought to take a close look, make sure they are meeting the requirements of their charter, and verify they are not running afoul of any sort of laws including taxes.

Maybe we should just start a lobbying effort. Members of the AARP ought to take a look at what the group is advocating and opposing, and decide for themselves if they are acting in their constituents' best interests. If not, they should begin lobbying the group to make them see the light. We allow labor unions, of which many are required to be members, to advocate political points of view which hurt their constituency. Is AARP doing the same thing?

According to the Los Angeles Times Wire Service Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, voiced frustration with countries such as the U.S. and Israel, which charge that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity.

"There's a lot of talk about somebody believes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. We cannot work on the basis of belief, we have to work on the basis of fact," ElBaradei said at the World Economic Forum here in Switzerland. "If people have information on the basis of which they are coming to the conclusion that this is a weapons program, I'd like very much for them to share with us."

Our reaction is probably echoed many places on and offline. It is patently false to use a negative to support a positive. ElBaradei and Iran must unequivocally prove that Iran is not developing a bomb. It is no longer up to the world to prove that Iran is developing a bomb and ElBaradei can no longer simply say there is no proof. Pakistan was one thing, North Korea another, but we CANNOT ALLOW IRAN TO GET THE BOMB. The Israelis will not tolerate such an occurrence nor would the United States. It cannot be allowed to happen and if ElBaradei can't provide 100% positive assurance, it is time for him to step down for good. Apparently he does not understand this. He has been an abject failure but we can no longer tolerate failures.

Just to update our Insidious Mr. Baxter story, Accuracy in Media (AIM) announced that Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has urged PBS to refund taxpayer dollars used toward production and circulation of a cartoon program featuring lesbian parents. AIM is also calling for an end to the $400 million annual federal funding for PBS and NPR. We heartily agree. The day when this sort of thing was a good idea has long since passed.

The headlines in my local Sunday newspaper are quite telling. "Bush knows stakes are high in balloting" "2 die at U.S. Embassy hours before vote" "Nine lives and counting for Marine" "Wary Iraqis stock up on food, gasoline in buildup to election" "Some see vote as way to evict occupiers" I read each of the stories and one way to summarize this biased basket of pessimism is "Danger for everyone, even Americans, in Iraq, its the US's fault, fear rules the day."

These salient points made by the Associated Parrots (who parrot what the far left fringe of the Democratic party espouses), are refuted today as overwhelming numbers of Iraqis walk miles with smiling faces and shouting voices to take advantage of the freedom our military has provided. The movie "A Few Good Men" comes to mind but this time the cocky, prima donna, domineering attorney is the bad guy while the tough career officer is the good guy. This time the military guy is doing the right thing and the crusaders are quite wrong.

What will the AP say later today or tomorrow? Will they do an about face and praise the success of this historic event? Will they say, whoa, Bush has been right all along? Don't count on it. Most likely whatever negative thing can be found in this will be spoken for the remainder of this week, perhaps several months. Remember it is always possible to find something negative in any situation. Satan was able to find negativity even in Heaven. It isn't that difficult to find the worst in everything and then blow it out of proportion. That's what depressed people the world over do before they get psychiatric treatment.

I can see what is going to happen. My only real question is which group of folks go first? Do Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, et al go first and give talking points to the AP or will the AP do the first speaking? Does it matter?

I want to take this opportunity, which is now about 2 hours after the polls opened in Iraq, to call for Iraqis to come out and vote. Coming out to vote is an act of rejection against terrorism. It's a statement that Iraqis citizens are not going to be ruled by terrorists.

I also dare the liberal bloggers out there to publish the same sentiment on their blogs. If you are a supporter of Democracy, freedom, and equal rights, then let's you see if you can back it up with some words.

Liberal bloggers are reportedly calling for Senator Barbara Boxer to run for President in 2008.

But the problem with Boxer is that she will divide this country even further. She's an ultra-liberal from one of the most liberal counties in California. Liberals created a divide in this nation going back to Al Gore, when the former Vice President refused to bring closure to the 2000 election.

At this time, we need healing. We need both Democrats and Republicans to set aside their differences, and bring us victory in the War on Terror. This is no time for partisan bickering.

The Preble's meadow jumping mouse will probably be removed from the endangered species list after peer reviewed scientific study indicates it is not a distinct species. Rather it is genetically identical to a more common species. The Endangered Species Act, on whose list the mouse had been since 1954, will no longer apply and, as a result, this will allow 31,000 acres in Colorado and Wyoming to be developed. The Mouse's protection had held up construction of reservoirs despite the need for them in the drought stricken area. Of course environmentalists do not like this development but the Endangered Species Act was never intended to help non-endangered species at tremendous cost to humans.

The Los Angeles Times published an article yesterday about a growing trend of employers refusing to hire workers who smoke, and requiring workers to take smoking tests.

At issue is the cost of health insurance, which has seen double-digit increases over the past several years.

However, the article didn't make a single mention of Proposition 72, an intiative that voters passed in California last November. Prop 72 forces employers to provide health insurance to all of its employees, and pay a minimum of 80% of the premium. Previously, providing health insurance was an optional benefit. If employers are now forced to provide health insurance benefits, then it only seems fair to me that they be allowed to hire the healthiest workers.

But the bigger problem behind all this is the high cost of health insurance premiums. Having worked at hospitals doing accounts receivables, and working with their CFOs, I can tell you that Medicare and Medicaid payments are paltry. The government doesn't even pay enough money for hospitals to break even with. In some cases, Medicaid doesn't pay a dime, and the hospital has to write off the balance. Hospitals have no choice but to raise its fees to patients who can afford to pay, and these are people with employer-funded health insurance policies.

The problem with Medicare and Medicaid, is that it allows recipients to get healthcare at very little cost. Sometimes, at no cost at all. The laws of Supply vs. Demand says that the cheaper something is, the higher the demand. And that's what's happening. Medicare and Medicaid recipients are taking advantage of the low-cost healthcare by overusing it.

Hence, the more times these people visit a doctor or hospital, the more times that healthcare provider is losing money, and the higher that provider charges the rest of us.

By eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, the costs of healthcare will go down so dramatically, that everyone will be able to afford private healthcare insurance, and employers won't have to discriminate against unhealthy workers.

A Reuters story entitled Jolie Raps Celebrity Grandstanding for Poor caught my attention. Ordinarily I ignore all stories having to do with celebrities and charity because I feel strongly that most stars are less interested in helping others than they are in fueling their own personal franchise. I call it the "look at me" factor.

This story was critical of celebrities so naturally I was pulled to it. I was shocked to read that "sexiest woman alive" Angelina Jolie claims she donates one-third of her income to charity. Also she says making movies is less interesting to her than her work for the UN. I have never been much of a Jolie fan but this changes my mind. If what she says is true, I really wish there were more celebrities like her. I like people who lead by example.

The Weekly Standard has published an open letter to Congress requesting an increase in active duty Army and Marine Corps of 25,000 persons per year for the next 7 years. The letter is signed by a bi-partisan panel consisting of the following individuals:

Peter Beinart
Jeffrey Bergner
Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot
Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly
Michele Flournoy
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson
Frederick Kagan
Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy
Paul Kennedy
Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol
Will Marshall
Clifford May
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired)
Daniel McKivergan
Joshua Muravchik
Steven J. Nider
Michael O'Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas Owens
Ralph Peters
Danielle Pletka
Stephen P. Rosen
Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe
James B. Steinberg

I don't claim to know anything about the right size of our military forces. Still I fear that the size was reduced during the Clinton years to an unacceptably low level in order to procure the "peace dividend." Based on the fact that I trust a number of people included in the above group from both sides of the aisle, I'd have to say I agree. What do you say?

Accuracy in Media is reporting another skeleton may be in Dan Rather's closet. The accusation stems from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review in which his sources and tapes run on the program are impugned. Man, does it ever stop with this guy? How can he possibly sleep at night knowing what an outright fake, fraud, phony and liar he is.

For the uninitiated, Buster Baxter is a rabbit. For a while he had a gig on the PBS animated drama series, Arthur. But his popularity grew to such an extent that he now has his own show, "Postcards from Buster" which is produced by WGBH/Cookie Jar Entertainment. The show basically consists of Buster and his father traveling around the United States and a few other places while sending home video postcards with all the cool things he's seen.

Buster even has his own blog to share his travels. Recently he traveled to a place in Vermont where he celebrated the approach of spring at a Christmas tree bonfire with a group which included a lesbian couple. I hazard the guess that the episode was created with an eye towards teaching children about "diversity" in an attempt to make them as "tolerant" as possible when they grow up. According to the not-for-profit organization's website, WGBH "enriches people's lives through programs and services that educate, inspire, and entertain, fostering citizenship and culture, the joy of learning, and the power of diverse perspectives."

The New York Times says the target audience for Buster's show is young elementary school children. But in my experience, it is more like preschool to no later than first grade. My kids watched Arthur for a few years beginning about age 3 and continued until maybe 7 at the latest. This show is for very young kids.

I tried to view the Vermont blog page but received an error message. I was curious to see whether the lesbian couple was emphasized online or not. Strangely, all the other locations worked fine but the one from Vermont was out. I suspect that since radio stations began covering this interesting twist, PBS took the page down for revisions but I can not testify to that. The page was missing when I looked.

According to the organization's financial report, WGBH gets 5% of their annual funding of nearly $200 million from government agencies. In other words, $10 million of their funds come from your taxes. This is not to count anything they might receive from other stations (approx. $40 million) which are of course also significantly funded by tax dollars, to air their shows.

I'm wondering how you feel about spending your money to produce shows whose goal is to teach 4-7 year olds about lesbians in order to make them more tolerant adults. I don't know about you but we didn't even discuss sexual issues with our 4-7 year olds. If you allow your kids to watch this show, you can expect to be asked by your preschooler to explain what a lesbian is. That's bad enough. But to have pay for this privilege?

These tiny microchips have long been inserted into cats and dogs as way to identify their owner if they become strays. CNET News reports that they're now showing up in people. As many as 1,000 people have voluntarily had RFID chips injected into their bodies.

The chips can store vital information, such as your name, date of birth, blood type, medical history, etc. But it can also store financial information such as credit card numbers, and buying habits.

The devices can also be linked to financial information such as credit card numbers and buying habits, which is why a nightclub in Glasgow, Scotland, recently began offering to implant its patrons with the chips. The club, called Bar Soba, said the chips let customers leave their wallets at home and count on their favorite drink being ready as soon as they walk through the door and get scanned.

Whoa! So what these chips do is allow people to become lazy, such that they no longer need to carry their wallets. But what about driver's licenses and social security cards? CNET goes on to report that the real bonus with having people implanted with RFID chips is for emergency care purposes:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared VeriChip for medical use in October. The company is targeting patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other conditions requiring complex treatment.

Harvard's Halamka, a practicing emergency room physician, said the chips may also be useful for speeding care in emergency situations in which patients are often unconscious or nonresponsive. The technology could also help prevent errors in treating and administering medication to patients, he said.

I bring this up because I used to handle accounts receivables for some hospitals. I can't begin to tell you how many people come into the emergency room without identification and financial information. One hospital I worked at had to shut down its emergency room because it lost so much money from treating patients with no identification on them.

But what if legislators required that certain people have these chips implanted into them? For example, if you receive Medicaid benefits, then what if the government required that you have this chip implanted in your body, such that when you arrive at a hospital, the staff can identify you and get your Medicaid billing information? Or what about Medicare for that matter? Or what about when you enlist in the military? Wouldn't it make sense to have a chip implanted in your body should you die on the battlefield?

Or what if you are a convicted sex offender, who has served his time, and has been released from prison? Wouldn't it make sense that you should have a chip implanted in you so that paranoid mothers can track your whereabouts?

This is going to happen folks.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted yesterday, 4-0, to expand anti-discrimination to include "gender identity." The issue came up in regards to transsexual or transgender men wanting to use women's restrooms. The modified ordinance allows men who portray themselves to be women (gender identity) to use women's restrooms, and vice-versa.

What I would like to know is what constitutes "gender identity."

I've seen some people for whom I could not determine the sex. You just can't tell the gender of some people. How are you going to enforce the law there?

And what about those California legislators who Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to as "girlie men?" Do they get to use women's restrooms too?

I mean really, what defines "gender identity?" Are men required to wear dresses in order to pass the "gender identity" test? Lots of women wear button shirts and pants. If I wear a button shirt and a pair of pants, can I go into a women's restroom?

Look out ladies!!

Reuters reports Kennedy Calls for U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq. "We now have no choice but to make the best we can of the disaster we have created in Iraq," Kennedy said in a speech. "The current course is only making the crisis worse." Kennedy also accused his country of making political decisions in Iraq. Reuters closed the article by stating, "Democrats like Kennedy have been the strongest critics of the war but many Republicans are also concerned, in part because Iraq is costing more than $1 billion a week and has put a great strain on America's military and its budget."

But where exactly are we right now? What were the casualty projections before the war? Were they anywhere near to the 1,400 who have died so far? What crisis is becoming worse as a result of our actions? Would that be the 18 million registered voters? The first election is just a few days away. Let's see where things are then. We have no intention of staying there one minute longer than we have to. And we have no designs on making political decisions for the Iraqis. We want them to have an established democracy so they are never again a threat to anyone else. Isn't that clear to everyone by now?

My real question is, why is Reuters and the AP reporting everything this moron says. He does not have the intelligence to represent the United States. Why not just leave him in the corner babbling. He is a "fortunate son" born of privilege who brings absolutely nothing else to the table. Why give him voice and make the rest of the world think his views are important here?

(Just to be fair, Reuters' story added apparent balance by including a criticism of Kennedy's comments from the RNC. Give me a break!)

The following is excerpted from:

To Teach the World How to Be Free
By Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn
New York Times, August 11, 1946, Page 91

"For sixteen days the delegates met in vigorous and at times furious debate. They then unanimourly approved a charter which will become effective when twenty Governments have accepted membership under it. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was thus conceived. The expectation is that in November, 1946, it will be born. It is to be called, for short, Unesco. About ten days ago President Truman with the approval of Congress announced the acceptance of membership by the United States.

The new agency is "specialized" in function. But it is specialized only in the sense in which any educational attempt to cultivate intelligence is specialized. It is an agency of study and of teaching rather than of external action. Unesco will have none of the responsibilities of the Security Council, of the Economic and Social Council, of the World Food Administration, of the International Labor Office.

And yet it is concerned with them all. It is essential to them all. In a fundamental sense, it is prior to them all. Its aim is the development of that international intelligence upon which the success of any United Nations activity depends. It seeks to discover and to spread abroad knowledge of facts and of principles, to establish among the peoples of the world mutual understanding, to open up, from one end of the world to the other, the channels of communication. Its goal is that humanity shall become an intellectually self-governing community. Only as we come nearer to that goal can the other agencies of the United Nations hope for solid success in their work.

....

As one who listened to the discussions in London, two themes were constantly recurrent, constantly dominant. First it quickly became evident that teachers from other lands believe, as strongly as we of the United States do, in democratic freedom for all mankind. Without hesitation they adopted the goal that all human beings, irrespective of climate, status, race, sex, or any other normal differentiation, shall be equally educated.

They did not expect that goal to be reached tomorrow. They have suffered too deeply of late to indulge in utopianism. And yet, for the minds of the teachers of humanity, the ringing words of our Declaration of Independence are as true in Java and in Poland, in Greece and in China, as they are true for us.

The Unesco delegates knew as well as we that no plan for world government can succeed unless it is carried on by consent of the governed. The purpose of the United Nations requires, therefore, that all human beings shall be educated for self-government, They must be equally educated, It is idle to expect our "leaders" to substitute peace for was unless We, the People of the World, for whom they act, understand what they are doing. They must act for us, be responsible to us. And that means that human beings who dwell upon this planet must become, as rapidly as it can be done, a world community of common knowledge and friendly cooperation rather than a bedlam of non-communicating interests and sovereignties. As that community grows, the United Nations will have a chance for success. How slight that chance is at present, one hardly dares to contemplate.

....

And, especially, the mass media of communication - the press, the cinema, the radio - must be freed from cripplings and distortions, must be so inspired by the love of objective truth and goodness that they will reveal mankind to itself, will enable it to see its members significantly and accurately."

Note the emphasis on world democracy. Note the supremacy of freedom above all other considerations was deemed by Dr. Meiklejohn to be essential to the success of the United Nations. Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Lyndon B. Johnson, after having been previously selected for the award by John F. Kennedy, December 6, 1963.

What was it that "progressives" found vague or offensive in Bush's inaugural speach?

The Heritage Foundation has published some interesting statistics on the state of healthcare in socialized countries, versus the state of healthcare here in the United States. Some highlights:

• 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list to get into hospitals at any one time.



• Only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, per capita.



• The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is 3-4 times what it is in Canada.



• One-fourth of Canadian men diagnosed with prostate cancer die from it.



• Less than one-fifth of American men diagnosed with prostate cancer die from it.

And to think, Canada's healthcare system is what Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy are wanting to adopt in the United States.

PBS and the Secretary of Education have a little disagreement going over the qualifications of programming for certain federal funding. But let's not get into the meat of the issue. Why the hell is government funding any television at this point? Perhaps PBS met some needs in the past. It most certainly does not today. If this ridiculous thing is to survive, let it survive exclusively on the dollars it can beg for.

Condoleeza Rice was confirmed by the senate today. If you are from California, Iowa, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, or West Virginia, you may wish to know that those who voted against her and are hereby labeled as obstructionists are:

> Barbara Boxer (D CA) webmaster@boxer.senate.gov senator@boxer.senate.gov
> Tom Harkin (D IA) senator_harkin@exchange.senate.gov
> Daniel Akaka (D HI) senator@akaka.senate.gov
> Richard Durbin (D IL) dick@durbin.senate.gov
> Evan Bayh (D IN) http://bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
> John Kerry (D MA) john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov
> Edward M. Kennedy (D MA) senator@kennedy.senate.gov
> Carl Levin (D MI) senator@levin.senate.gov
> Mark Dayton (D MN) http://dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
> Frank Lautenberg (D NJ) frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov
> Jack Reed (D RI) it_wmail_828@reed-it01.senate.gov http://reed.senate.gov/form-opinion.htm
> James Jeffords (Ind. VT) vermont@jeffords.senate.gov
> Robert C. Byrd (D WV) senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov

13 votes against Rice were a record for a nominated secretary of state. That's right this sort of partisanship is unprecedented. Keep these people in mind as you go to vote for Senate seats next go around. If you are from one of these states and disagree with your representative, let them know and be sure not only to vote against them but also to convince a few of your friends to do likewise.

San Francisco became the latest city today to ban smoking cigarettes in public parks. In a move to gain greater control of people's lives, the city council decided it was necessary to intervene in front of parents not doing enough to teach children not to smoke.

"It is a danger to our small children and not a particularly good example for them either," said Michela Alioto-Pier, a city legislator. "Parks are an area unfortunately where there is a lot of litter and cigarette butts make up four times as much litter as any thing else out there. It is a detriment to the environment. It takes 10-12 years for a cigarette butt to biodegrade, and the toxins go into the ground water."

Cigarette butt toxins going into the ground water? Who is she trying to fool? I suppose you can fool San Franciscans, but not the rest of us. Cigarette butts don't leak toxins into the ground water. If trash is their concern, how about placing more trash bins in public parks? Hello??

If you want to use that logic, then the greatest threat to our ground water are homeless people. San Francisco attracts large numbers of homeless people because of the homeless shelters its provides and the generous monthly stipends its pays out to them. All the urine and feces they deposit on public grounds creates a health hazard to the city's children. Of course, the city will argue that it provides public restrooms. But if that's their argument, why can't they provide more trash bins for cigarette smokers?

This has more to do with a socialist city council trying to stick it to the tobacco companies than anything else.

Researchers have found memory training helps kids with ADHD. The study involved using a computer program which basically exercises the kids' working memory, what is used to keep information for short periods of time and to do normal everyday tasks. The lead researcher noted that other means of accomplishing the same sort of exercise such as mental calculation worked well also.

In other words, the traditional method of teaching/learning is one of the best things you can do for ADHD kids. And, perhaps, the new methods of teaching/learning which have been thrust upon us by the teaching unions are wrong and maybe even contribute to the epidemic of ADHD we see in this country. I'm so glad I put my kids into Kumon, the Japanese math and verbal self-study through drilling course.

Hillary is out stumping for the next election, on the taxpayers' dole might I add. Her opinions are strikingly moderate to conservative. She's out questioning abortion rates, advocating faith, and generally espousing everything and anything she thinks the general population is in favor of. But who is she really and are conservatives going to stand around and let her lie about her true positions? We suffered through many years of her husband because we believed he was a moderate. Look where that got us. The United States became a lazy super power with a depleted military and intelligence capability that was relegated to lobbing million dollar missiles blindly into countries where we thought bin Laden was hiding.

Do you want national healthcare where you have to stand in line to see a doctor even if you are dying? Do you want to wait six weeks to receive emergency care?

Do you want reduced spending on military, intelligence and homeland security?

Do you want emphasis on wealth redistribution and entitlements? Do you want to pay more in federal income taxes because you are married?

Are you willing to stand by whle a liberal in conservative clothing is sworn in?

Then do nothing. Of course Hillary won't win. Right!

Or maybe you ought to gether as much information as possible on how she actually votes and on exactly what her real position are. Print out lots of copies, you're going to need them. Then be prepared to go stumping against her by handing out copies of what her real positions are and to explain to people how the mainstream media, CNN and the other pundits for the left are lying about whoever the Republican candidate is.

Those who ignore history are condemned to relive it.

The easiest way to make any group of human beings unite for a common cause is to name a scapegoat and organize an attack against it. Fundamentalist Muslim clerics grasp this simplistic technique to keep their flock in line in a fashion reminiscent of the Nazis. Fundamentalist Islam uses the notion of jihad to rally all young “believers” to a common cause, the destruction of all infidels. The Nazis united their people, under the banner of organic nationalism, by demonizing all who were not pure Germans. This simplistic bullying technique works until the day the group comes into conflict with the world at large and either changes its ways or perishes. Historically speaking, the collateral damage to those who could have stopped the bully but didn’t is atrocious.

Initially movements like the jihadists and Nazis are small, weak, and must identify suitable targets, ones society at large doesn’t care about. Similarly, the elementary school classroom bully first picks on the unpopular weakling, someone nobody will defend. Most other students stay clear of the bully because they weren’t the chosen victim and wish to avoid his wrath in the future. A few will join forces with him because it seems the safest way to avoid being his next victim and because it is great fun to be a member of the exclusive club of the apparently powerful. The Nazis chose the jews because they were an extremely unpopular and weak minority. They chose Czechoslovakia not only because they knew the fortifications of the Sudetenland were a serious obstacle, but also because they knew the world at large would not oppose the move against the weak, unpopular kid. They next went against Poland because it was an easy target and because they knew the world would not intervene. Fundamentalist Islamic jihadists chose the Jews because they know the world at large would not initially feel threatened by the move. They also chose Afghanistan because the rest of the world could rationalize that it is a backwards country to begin with and one which needed some sort of post-Soviet order.

The Nazis planned all along to conquer the world since their very cause had nothing but disdain for all non-Germans. The jihadists similarly believe that anyone who isn’t a part of their cause has no right to exist. The classroom bully has no ideological foundation nor world dominating ambition but will expand his target list over time in order to satisfy his lust for supremacy over as many classmates as possible. Eventually the bully comes into conflict with the rest of society and no society will suffer a bully indefinitely.

Many Muslim countries are following the historically discredited method of bully appeasement. This is evidenced by a news story entitled Saudi Clerics Point Militants Toward Iraq. In order to avoid being bullied by jihadists, the Saudis send young men off to other places to wreak havoc. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, they had a ready made place. Now there is Iraq. One day there will be no easy target abroad and the bullies will come home to Saudi Arabia. Now is the time for the Saudis to make a clear decision to avoid the damage to their homeland which will result from the eventual beat down. The same can be said of all countries which harbor the jihadist movement. The opportunity to do everything possible to put down the bullies is now because the bullies have already picked fights with the biggest kids on the block, the United States, Russia and China. Time is running out. The collateral damage from the inevitable beat down will be atrocious.

New York City Councilwoman, Madeline Provenzano, has submitted a bill to require everyone 16 years or older, who rides a bicycle in New York City, to have a bicycle license tag on their bicycle. Provenzano is as you guessed, a Democrat.

Let's see... the more people who ride bicycles, the less smog we have, the more exercise people get, fewer car accidents, fewer traffic tickets people have to pay, the less fuel we consume, less gasoline tax we have to pay, don't have to ride the subway anymore... Ah! That's just it. Riding bicycles is lot cheaper than driving cars. That means New York City stands to lose money if more people ride their bicycles.

If you read the bill, it says that:

• The department may charge a fee for such sign and identification number not to be more than twenty-five dollars per registration.



• A violation of subdivision b of this section or of any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, shall be a misdemeanor triable by a judge of the criminal court of the city of New York and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than fifteen days or by both such fine and imprisonment. Such person shall also be liable for a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars which civil penalty may be recovered in a proceeding before the environmental control board.

Now it all makes sense. This is about money. Provenzano wants to take $25.00 from every bicycle, and $100-$300 from anyone who didn't know about the law, to keep policemen and mass-transit workers happy.

Oh, if any of you think that this is about safety, you're wrong. Notice that this bill only applies to people who are 16 years and older, which are more likely to be commuters. If this were about safety, it would have applied to all people.

For those of you who live in New York City, there is a group called Transportation Alternatives who is organizing against Provenzano's attempt at a money grab.

NOAA Research Meteorologist Doctor Chris Landsea, a weather scientist with more than just a great name, is withdrawing his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) according to an open letter to the public published on the University of Colorado at Boulder web site. Dr. Landsea is leaving because he believes the part of the IPCC in which he participates has become politicized. He is reacting to a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity."

Traditional media outlets went berserk reporting the headline proclaiming the disastrous 2004 hurricane season was due to global warming. Many bloggers, including Political Dogs, and a few conservative radio talk show hosts laughed at the notion while noting that there was nothing actually remarkable about the season. Dr. Landsea states in his letter, "I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."

Dr. Landsea expressed concern "when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy." But his concerns were intensified by the reaction of the IPCC when he pointed out the obvious error in scientific understanding before the comments were released in the press conference. He said, "Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field."

Dr. Landsea is an extremely accomplished climatologist who is a member of many important organizations and has written key works on tropical cyclone prediction. He holds a Doctoral Degree in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University where his advisor was Dr. William Gray, the pre-eminent hurricane scientist in the United States whose annual predictions are known to most people. His work and opinions are frequently cited by the largest news organizations in this country.

We wonder why his departure and critiques of the leading proponent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming have not been extensively reported. In fact, the only place we saw this reported was JunkScience.com indicating perhaps political agendas on global warming are not limited to the IPCC!

Robert Redford kicked off the Sundance Film Festival with a politically charged diatribe proclaiming "this is really a festival about different voices in film that really reflect, a little more accurately, the world we live in." Redford, like most of Hollywood, sees his political and social views as unpopular and non-conformist yet clearly correct and morally, even intellectually, superior. He fancies himself as one of the few in a small, exclusive club of socially conscious "progressive" intellectuals in this backwards, conservative country.

Redford is a regular contributor to the Democratic Party because that party more closely reflects his liberal views. He speaks as if these views (environmentalism, gay marriage, etc.) have difficulty finding a voice in light of the most recent elections. Contrast this with politically conservative, no-work-to-be-found, actor Ron Silver's plight or Ned Rice's article on the dozen or so Hollywood conservatives' angst. The artistic community in this country likes to complain that its views are suppressed and their individual liberty is in jeopardy because conservatives hold a slight majority in government. But are their views really suppressed or have they been in the majority for decades?

There is very little in this country which is truly conservative. Liberal political and social views have held sway for quite some time in the sense that we still engage in wealth redistribution, tolerate social views from the tails of the normal curve, and permit nearly treasonous dissent. Our government spends the greatest percentage of total resources to provide entitlements. Our tax dollars are spent disproportionately on lobbied special interest concerns such as HIV research as opposed to other health issues which affect a greater piece of the population. Political dissenters such as Michael Moore, Sean Penn, even John Kerry have been allowed to criticize the seated United States government in a manner reminiscent of Ezra Pound, the fascist poet tried for treason during World War Two.

It seems to me that what the Sundance festival is really about is providing support to motion pictures which are not commercially viable. In my small, middle class life, I call personal interests which are not commercially viable, hobbies. In everyday life artists who produce works that others don't want are usually called amateurs. This accurate reflection of reality is hard to refute.

Peter Ward of the University of Washington believes that what caused all the dinosaurs to die was global warming, brought on by volcanoes.

Ward's team believes the extinctions were caused by global warming and oxygen deprivation over long periods of time.

Massive volcanic flows in what is now Siberia brought on the warming while, at the same time, geologic action caused global sea levels to drop, Ward explained in a telephone interview.

"Once you expose a huge amount of underwater sediment to the atmosphere, two very bad things happen — a huge amount of carbon in the sediments is released and also methane. Once (methane) hits the atmosphere it's the most efficient greenhouse gas on the planet," he said.

The Evironmental Protection Agency has published statistics on its website that the Earth's average temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. But no one knows why.

Peter Ward seems to have put forth plenty of data suggesting that the Earth's seismic activity is the engine that drives it surface temperature and atmospheric content. What do you think?

Now that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted to confirm Condi Rice for Secretary of State by a 16-2 vote, Senator Kerry made an interesting remark. Kerry cast one of the two dissenting votes.

"I choose to vote my concerns, not to overlook them. I choose to vote my gut, not custom," Kerry said during a committee meeting that preceded the vote.

Kerry called Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, one of the "principal architects" of policies that he said have made the United States less secure.

I found it interesting in that in a time of war against terrorism, and at a time when Islamic Fascists have decreed that all Americans must die, he chose to put faith in his gut when casting his vote. First, this obviously explains why he lost the Presidency. He doesn't have the ability to formulate logical ideas and opinions, hence he shoots from the gut.

But the other thing is that he said Rice had a hand as a "principal architect" in making our country less secure. Oh really? Is he actually saying that Rice conspired with Islamic Fascists to crash jetliners into buildings?

How does one measure the state of security in our country? The only way to measure, that I can think of, is when an act of terrorism actually takes place in our country. If he is using the words, "principal architect" then he is saying that Rice had the specific intention of making us less secure.

I'm sensing that Senator Kerry is a little angered because Condi Rice is black. I think he has faith that Rice can do the job, but I think he's upset because George W. Bush was the first President to give African Americans a significant role in the administration of the United States. Kerry wants to hold Rice back to prevent other African Americans from thinking that they've actually taken a step forward.

Over the past several years a friend recounted to me tales of near-death experiences while driving near Princeton, New Jersey. The problem was deer in the road just after dusk when he was likely to be driving home. Reductions in hunting in the densely populated state, a lack of natural predators, and some relatively mild winter weather have allowed the population of deer to explode.

The deer explosion and its disastrous results are discussed in an article published by the Associated Press. Some of the highlights are:

- Deer populations in some areas are now denser than they were in pre-European North America.
- Deer are completely destroying some forests ability to regenerate.
- Nearly 15,000 people were injured in car crashes caused by deer which resulted in over $1 billion in vehicle damage.
- Deer are removing the natural habit for a number of ground-nesting birds, as well as many other species of animals which cannot survive without ground cover.

In a related story, Ted Nugent’s Hunters for the Hungry announced last year that the loosely knit organization had provided 1 million pounds of venison to homeless shelters and other organizations.

The last couple of years, Princeton planned to hire sharpshooters to hunt deer and thereby cull the population down to reasonable levels. Animal activists were, of course, out in force to protest this travesty.

AnimalRights.net, alternate url, published a story about this noting one animal rights spokesperson stated, “We are appalled and will not be party to any collaboration between hunters and attorneys calling for anyone to kill deer in Princeton or anywhere else.”

My question is, what exactly are the animal rights groups out to protect? Certainly they are uninterested in preservation of the environment, specifically the forests. Ground nesting birds and other animals which need ground cover are not included in their agenda. And people, oh the people, they don’t matter.

So when are we going to treat these bambi-loving morons the way they deserve to be treated?

Leslie Moonves, chairman of CBS, has announced that he aims to change CBS News in a "revolution and not an evolution," by abandoning its "voice-of-God, single-anchor" format unless a "very special person" were to be found. CBS News, which has fallen behind NBC News, ABC News, Spike TV's MXC, Sábado Gigante, and half the runs of ESPN's Sports Desk, wants to appeal to a younger audience. But as long as they insist on using Democratic Party fundraisers, we'll know what they are about! ;>

Democratic Senators are having at Condoleezza Rice today in her confirmation hearing today and tomorrow. Californian Barbara Boxer made various comments aimed at the Bush administration without actually asking any questions of Rice. Rice disliked the tone and fought back, "I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly."

Rice's confirmation is apparently not in any way at issue. It is a foregone conclusion that she will be confirmed. Boxer is merely taking the bully pulpit provided by the hearings to pump forth her irrelevant blather. At one point she asked Rice rhetorically if she had read the document they had voted on - the one which authorized the use of force in Iraq. She went on to say something like "I hadn't read it before we voted on it. But you should read it because it says the only reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction."

Condoleeza Rice most likely had a hand in drafting the very document. I don't know this but my point is she was on the President's staff. She didn't vote on the thing. That wasn't her responsibility. But it most certainly was Boxer's responsibility to read it!!! Why do we continue to choose representatives to Congress who DON'T DO THEIR JOBS? Regardless of politics, anyone who is supposed to represent us and is supposed to exercise due diligence on such a matter of national importance MUST READ THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT OF HER TENURE. She should have committed the whole damn thing to memory. Why does the media not examine this comment and question Boxer about this? Why does she get a free pass?

American Muslims are complaining about how muslims are depicted by the TV show "24". First off, let's realize that this is a TV show. The past several seasons portrayed a number of other groups as the biggest terrorist threat to America. They are just now getting around to Muslims.

Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with this depiction. All muslims are not terrorists in this world but a large percentage of terorists are muslim. There is little debate about this. And it isn't just disaffected, single muslim men who form the ranks of the world's terorists. Just ask any Israeli.

24 is an excellent show amid a sea of TV detritus. You don't like it, then don't watch it. I don't like most of what Al Jazeera shows, how it depicts Americans. And from what I've heard about Palestinian TV, there is nothing on in the US which should even be questioned.

John Kerry is complaining about the election today to mark the Martin Luther King holiday. In a speech at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast, he claimed "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote." He noted that folks in certain Democratic party strongholds waited for hours to vote because there were not enough machines. He also claimed that folks in areas he lost to Bush were able to vote in 10 minutes because they had so many machines.

What's wrong with this logic? Don't the Dem.s control the voting infrastructure in these areas? And why is he bringing this up now?

What a great leader! What a man of character!

If this is what he has to bring to the table, I'm elated that he is not our president. I was elated anyways. This drives it home.

Whoppee! We are now in the season when mega-millionaire famous people congratulate one another for doing their jobs well. The Golden Globes are tonight. Whoppee!

The beautiful people will walk the red carpet. A few winners will make pithy political commentary on things they know nothing about such as the Iraq war, tsunami aid, and the Palestine/Israel thing. What a bore.

So what would happen if nobody watched these productions? Never mind. It'll never happen. Americans are far too start struck for that.

In regards to the decision by U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper where he said Cobb County's school board had violated the constitutional ban on the separation of church and state when it put the disclaimers on biology books in 2002, I ask where in the Constitution does it say there is separation of church and state?

Here is what the First Amendment of the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What this says is that no laws shall be created in respect to the establishment of religion or the free practice thereof.

What happened in Cobb County did not involve law, therefore it is not a matter of Constitutionality. This was a case where the school board decided to place stickers into textbooks advising that the Theory of Evolution is not fact. And they are correct, it is a theory, which is why it's called "Theory of Evolution".

As a libertarian, I support equality on both sides. You can't create equality by boosting a lesser side so that it is even with the opposite side. Equality exists only when each individual makes his or her own decision. In this case, creationism versus evolution is a personal decision.

Personally, I believe in evolution. But I also believe that creationists have just as much right to express their beliefs as I. A true libertarian defends the rights of the religious just as much as the non-religious. If our public schools are going to answer the question of "where did we come from", then it has to teach creationism also.

The Seattle Times published the following by William Ruckelshaus and K.C. Golden yesterday:

"The facts about global warming are becoming clear. We don't know everything about it, but we know it is happening. We know human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, are very probably the dominant cause. We know it is likely to disrupt our economic and environmental systems if we don't change course. This is the judgment of one of the most exhaustively peer-reviewed scientific collaborations in history, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

I rather doubt they actually said this since the IPCC did actually say, "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible."

The Obligation of Leadership

I am not so naïve as to believe our politicians, particularly at the higher levels, run for office purely out of the desire to serve the public. There is little question that many do what they do because they have big egos and out of a desire to achieve power. They want to rise up from the masses and stand out as strong and intelligent individuals. They do not want to leave as their legacy that they were one of many plain, ordinary folk. I accept this notion but feel at my core that our leaders must be imbued with a sense that they are obliged to lead us well. A group lost in the wilderness will tend to fracture and split into many directions unless a leader is chosen. The leader must not only desire to choose the direction, but must also feel obliged to lead the people in the right direction, out of the woods.

One of the essential elements of leadership is the obligation to teach the individuals one is leading. We see this behavior in many facets of our everyday lives. It isn’t nearly enough for the CEO of a company to say “this is what we’re going to do and this is how we are going to do it.” Rather the successful leader will add “and this is why we are going to do this and do it this way.” In this fashion, the leader achieves a “buy-in” from his constituents who are transformed from blind-faith followers into passionate believers in the way chosen. In the military and in sports we call the passionate belief in a common cause, morale. No army or sports team, or for that matter business enterprise, ever achieves victory with poor morale. Passionate believers make better teammates, foxhole partners and co-workers than do blind-faith followers because the passionate believer acts as a surrogate leader and helps maintain high morale as well as focus on the mission at hand.

So what does this notion that our leaders are obliged to teach mean? The Associated Press reports British Prince Harry wore a nazi uniform to a costume party. His father, Prince Charles, has ordered him and his brother to visit the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. This is an important event because it is a fact that many, particularly young people, view the royal family as leaders. Many young people are almost completely ignorant of what happened to the Jews under Hitler. Prince Charles is taking this opportunity to teach all those who would see him as a leader.

Dissimilarly, in a recent speech by Senator Kennedy, a statement was made wherein the Iraq war was called “Bush’s Vietnam.” It is a fact that many of our young people know very little about the Vietnam war. Most teenagers know little more than we were on the winning side of the two world wars, stalemated in Korea, but we lost in Vietnam. Our schools teach precious few facts and these are mostly those used for rote memorization such as the dates of conflicts. They do not understand the complexities behind each conflict. To simply state that Iraq=Vietnam is an irresponsible lesson. Vietnam was a different type of war. It was one in which the essential facts of why we were there and what was going on in the country bare little resemblance to Iraq. We propped up an unpopular regime in Vietnam in order to fight against the spread of communism. We chose one of two sides and unfortunately the corrupt one. In Iraq, we are setting the stage for the people to choose their own regime. Senator Kennedy’s remarks exemplify a leader who feels no obligation to teach the truth while maintaining his grasp on the leadership reins. Senator Kennedy wishes to be in charge but he does not care if he leads us out of the wilderness.

There is a danger in this desire to achieve political success for success sake. Over time, the people begin to realize that a leader is disingenuous when one lies to achieve power. During the most recent Presidential campaign, we witnessed a large group of people on both sides of the aisle telling half truths and worse. I am not ignorant of the use of rhetoric on the political stage but there must be a line between spin and truth when national, even world, survival is at issue.

Recently a teenage caller to a radio talk show expressed the view that somehow fundamentalist muslim terrorism attacks on the United States were a new phenomenon which developed as a result of some visceral dislike of George Bush on the part of the Muslim world. The host of the show took the time to explain to the caller that this brand of terrorism was nothing new. I was astonished to hear the caller admit that he was ignorant of the first world trade attack and had never heard of the Munich Olympic attack, never mind the many in between. This under five minute phonecall changed this child’s whole perception of the current state of world affairs.

The leaders of today have a moral obligation to teach all of us what happened under Nazism in Germany and how that correlates to the current situation in the Middle East. Our children need to understand that Israel was created in direct reaction to the worst genocide on record. They also need to understand that the Jews hold a thousands of years’ old deed to the lands of Israel; there is no historic Palestinian people of any faith who lay superior claim to the land; we have a moral obligation to ensure the existence of Israel precisely because of what the Nazis did, the terrorists who attack us and have been attacking us for a long time do so, at least in part, because of this moral obligation, Saddam Hussein funded, if not directly al Qaeda, the terrorists of Palestine; and this is not going to go away anytime soon. We are at war. Our leaders also need to speak realistically about the limitations of the United Nations. It was irresponsible of John Kerry to tell the youth of this country that we would have been better served by working through the community of nations than by forming the limited coalition that we did. He did this in order to get elected. The truth is that the United Nations was at best inept and at worst corrupt in the sanctions process which was intended to prevent Iraq from obtaining “the bomb” Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian born Palestinian leader, vaguely threatened would win the war against Israel. The truth is that not everyone in this world holds a pre-eminent moral obligation to ensure the safety of the Jewish people. Not everyone in this world remembers Auschwitz.

It is no longer about politics. That battle is over. It is now about leadership. It is our leaders’ obligation to teach the followers the truth. If they fail this, they fail to lead us out of the wilderness and we perish.

The BBC reports that less sunlight reaches earth nowadays because particle pollution, as opposed to the invisible carbon dioxide pollution, causes sunlight to reflect back into space. It seems that the greenhouse effect of carbon is countered by particle pollution. But we have been decreasing the amount of particle pollution and increasing carbon pollution so we're in for big trouble!!

This is really confusing stuff to a simple mind like mine so I'm asking, yet again, for the world's scientists to get their act together, apply real scientific studies, and figure out what's what once and for all. Let's cut the politically motivated BS, drop the philosophical crap and get to the TRUTH. We have lost our patience with your many contradictory studies and the spun web of contradictory statistical data. Let's have some real science for a change.

Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe wrote a piece today in which he calls for Congress to increase its number of representatives:

Divide Iraq's 25 million people by the number of members in the new parliament (275), and the result is one legislator for every 91,000 people. That will make Iraq's government almost exactly as representative as Great Britain's -- each member of the House of Commons also represents, on average, about 91,000 citizens. Other democracies are comparable. The ratio for Italy's Chamber of Deputies is 1 to 92,000. For the French National Assembly, 1 to 104,000. For Canada's House of Commons, 1 to 105,000. For Germany's Bundestag, 1 to 136,000.

But in the US House of Representatives, each lawmaker represents, on average, a staggering 674,000 citizens. That makes the "people's house" in Washington one of the least democratic bodies of its kind in the world. No wonder so many Americans feel alienated from Congress.

This piece has inspired the biggest liberal blogger of them all to get a bandwagon going.

The primary argument being made here is Americans feel alienated from the Congress, and that the solution is to create more Congressmen. Jacoby says that:

The vastness of their constituencies has turned too many representatives into distant careerists, political moguls with bloated staffs and bloated egos who are more closely attuned to their campaign war chests than to the lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

I wonder if he was referring to Nancy Pelosi?

Well, this means that not only are liberals calling for more laws, but also for more lawmakers.

Any freedom-loving American can see right through this. This is an attempt to give greater control of the House to the cities. Because cities tend to be comprised of Democratic voters, therefore Democrats can take control of Congress.

Hence liberals are attemping to circumvent the will of the voters under the guise of "making Americans feel better about their Congress." It comforts me to know that Jacoby and Zuniga are concerned about my feeling "alienated".

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last Monday that the Ku Klux Klan is allowed to adopt a highway under Missouri's "Adopt a Highway" program. Under the program, an organization of volunteers pick up trash along the State's highways, and in return the State puts up a sign with the organization's name and logo on it.

State officials warned of problems if the Klan succeeds in forcing the state to allow them into the program. "Given the KKK's reputation as a hate group, it is reasonable to anticipate that taunts, jeers, insults or objects would be hurled at KKK mem