Liberals have long had Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream on their side.

But recently, a company called Star Spangled Ice Cream started up to provide conservatives with a pro-America alternative, supportive of our military personnel.

In fact, they recently expanded their distribution to stores on military bases.

Check out their flavor names...

• Fightin' Marines Tough Cookies-n-Cream


• Air Force Plane Vanilla


• G.I. Love Chocolate


• Navy Battlechip


• Iraqi Road


• Smaller GovernMint


• Gun Nut


• I Hate French Vanilla


• Nutty Environmentalist

Star Spangled Ice Cream is available in Virginia Farm Fresh Supermarkets and participating 7-Eleven Stores. You can also buy it from their website.

10% of all profits are donated to veterans charities, including Oliver North's Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund.

Can you imagine if Senator Bill Frist came out and said "I am against this war and I think all the soldiers should be removed from Iraq immediately?"   That would make the front page of the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and every other major newspaper in every city across this country.   Network news would carry it as THE story.   This would be the treatment even if there was an unprecedented tsunami, a cat 5 (7?) hurricane in the gulf headed straight for New Orleans, and there was a magnitude 9 earthquake in San Francisco.

So why is it any different when Joe Lieberman says America's military and political strategy is progressing in Iraq?   He said we are making substantial progress on every front, the plan is working.   Yet this little tidbit was not in my newspaper.   I didn't see it listed under big stories on the AP news sites.   I cannot find it on the NYTimes' site.   Had I not left the TV on Fox News and walked by at the right moment last night, I never would have known.

So before any viewer of this site can argue with me that the media at large is not biased to the left, you must explain why this was not important news.   OK, go ahead.

The LA Times admitted today that it wants the US to fail in Iraq.   Well, that's not exactly true.   But their actions make that statement.

The Times printed a story in which their reporters discovered the U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press.   The military is paying to place stories in Iraqi newspapers written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.   "The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country."   The article admits that the stories are factually true.   But it complains that they are being represented as news yet "present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments."

I guess the Times blew the cover off the American effort at actually succeeding there.   How dare America present the truth as news in order to further the military and political cause.   Nobody else would ever even think about trying to convince a civilian population of an opinion based upon incomplete facts, would they?   Did the Los Angeles Times ever print an ostensibly true but biased story in order to further their own agenda?   Nooooooo!   They would never do that.   They are morally good and right.

The Associated Press reports that researchers at the University of Arkansas claim to have developed a way to convert chicken fat into biodiesel fuel.

R.E. Babcock, a professor of chemincal engineering said...

They burn better, create less particulate matter and actually lubricate and clean things like cylinders, pistons and fuel lines.

The report goes on to say that chickent fat can be a cheaper alternative to using soybean oil in the creation of biodiesel fuels.

As if PETA doesn't already have its hands full fighting Kentucky Fried Chicken, now it's going to have to divide itself even further to fight biodiesel companies.

Being that they create less particulate matter won't be of any consolation to environmentalists either. I just can't see them accepting a bigger chicken industry in exchange for cleaner air.

But I hope it takes off and becomes big business. I'm anticipating Kentucky Fried Chicken coming out with a new line of fuel additives called "Rooster Booster".

I happened upon a TV show on the Discovery Times Channel called "Red and Blue" which is described: "Two families with opposing political views swap lives for two weeks."   One family represents the conservative side.   They are farmers from Louisiana, fundamentalist Christian, own guns, support Bush and the war, etc.   The other family is from California, despises Bush, is against the Iraq war, etc.   I didn't watch the show because right at the outset I was offended by the choice of representatives.   What or who is behind the popular notion that conservatives are farmers, Christian, gun owners, or any of these other things?   But even more offensive to me than the choice of representatives was something discussed at the very beginning of the show.   Someone stated that there are two Americas, that this country is becoming polarized geographically.   What or who is behind the popular notion that there exists in this country two sets of states with opposing viewpoints?

I have always lived in and around the cities of the northeast.   I am college educated.   I can barely change the oil in a car let alone handle the respobsibility of running a farm.   I have never even handled a gun.   I consider myself to be Christian but I am suspicious of institutionalized religion and rarely attend any church service.   The last two times I was in a church it was a Unitarian Universalist which I think is really a lame sort of gathering but hey, you gotta go to weddings and funerals.   I am no fundamentalist.   I studied comparative world religions as a minor in college along with history, philosophy and a major in business.   I've never owned a pickup truck or even an SUV.   I think about buying a hybrid and will probably do so when I get around to buying another car ten years from now.   The closest I have ever come to liking "country music" is the Allman Brothers.   Generally I like Punk Rock whether it is new or old but I am also hugely into most of the sixties music since that's when and where my tastes were formed.   I supported Bush twice because I believe he was a far better choice than either Gore or Kerry.   Kerry was well beneath even a reasonable representative of the Democrat party but let's not get into that.   I am thinking of "going solar" sometime in the future but not because I think anthropogenic greenhouse gases have anything to do with global temperatures.   I don't.   But I do think using solar power if it were cost effective would be cool.   Screw the big energy companies - let me keep my money.   I am not against big business.   I don't think the oil companies gouged anybody.   I just don't like paying a lot for energy.   I really do not want to look at windmills if I go to the beach but I do worry that if the world were to go with wind power, we have no idea how that might effect climate.

I live in a state that is completely dominated by the Democrat party and liberal ideology.   But even here, there is a very large portion of the population who routinely votes for conservative candidates just as there is a large portion of the population in conservative controlled states which routinely votes for liberal politicians.   I have family in several blue and several red states but these people are both liberal and conservative.   They are educated and not, fundamentalist Christian and not, even atheist, sophisticated urbanites and not, yada, yada, yada.   And if I listed their demographic characteristics, you could not connect the liberals or conservatives to the demo stuff.   I could tell you who was what, where they lived, what they do for a living, what their religious beliefs were, educational levels, etc. etc. and if you tried to connect people with political philosophy, you would be wrong about 70% of the time.

Come to think of it, as I go through the list of people I know in my day to day life and those in my family, there is rarely a solid correlation between your prototypical liberal demographics and a liberal political philosophy.   The same is true on the conservative side.   But not only that, there is such a broad mix of social liberals who vote conservative on so many issues and social conservatives who vote liberal on so many issues that it makes my head spin.   I am lefty wondering why there is this notion in places like the mainstream media and channels like Discovery Times that conservatives are all country bumpkins, etc. and liberals all live in New York City or Los Angeles.

In liberal states, there are some urbane, erudite proponents of liberal philosophy but those states would no longer be Democrat controlled were it not for the under-educated urban poor who routinely vote Democrat because their fundamentalist church preachers tell them to.   The often well educated, urbane middle class people in these liberal states frequently vote Republican.   If you look at the county map of who voted for whom in recent elections you do see a trend of the rural counties voting for Republicans and the urban centers voting for Democrats but even these votes are reasonably close.   Whether you are liberal, conservative, or neither, almost half the people you encounter today will hold opposing political viewpoints.   That is an undeniable fact.   So let's put the new popular mythology of a polarized country to bed.   It just ain't so.

Here's a story about the biochemical changes which occur when one "falls in love."   Researchers have discovered that a molecule called nerve growth factor increases when you fall in love but that only lasts about one year at the longest.   Single people and those in long term relationships have lower nerve growth factor levels than those who are what is commonly referred to as infatuated.   Now that we have this finding, I would like to know the levels of the molecule in people who get divorced in one year or less.   It seems to me that perhaps this is the drug of addiction for folks who have large numbers of short marriages.   The "me" and "instant gratification" generations have a high level of early divorce.   Perhaps this is the cause?

Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans has announced plans to offer free Wi-Fi internet access throughout New Orleans.   Part of the system is already up and running.   Isn't that just wonderful?   It kind of reminds me of a person I know who lived in poverty but wanted to get a new computer.   You can't eat a computer.   You can't house or clothe yourself with a computer.   New Orleans cannot rid itself of the dangerous mold which grows in storm-ravaged buildings, it cannot firm up its levees, but, heck, they got free internet there.   Whooppeeeeeee!

Is this man for real?   He just fired half the city's employees.   They don't have basic services to this day.   Their police force's ability has been called into question.   The place is falling apart.   Can someone get a message to Nagin for me?   Hey Ray, you're an idiot.   Give it up already.   You couldn't be effective as mayor of a t-ball team.   Quit, you imbecile.

Listening to Europeans try to psycho-analyze the United States is great sport.   After all these centuries they still don't understand us.   A case in point is the work entitled "America Right or Wrong" by Anatol Lieven who sees a "nationalist, messianic dark side of America."   Lieven sees America as overextended, riding for a fall and unable to "fulfill its present goals of basically dominating everywhere."   Lieven looks back to early America, then President Andrew Jackson and sees the development of a "messianic belief America can do no wrong."   He sees the divide between the East Coast intelligentsia and the rest of the country (really a divide between east and west coast liberals and the rest of the country) as a manifestation of those with the messianic view and those with intelligence.   He claims the present administration - run by folks from "frontier states" - somehow embraces the messianic vision which causes the U. S. to be aggressive internationally and attempt to dominate the rest of the world.   Indeed the "America is always right" credo is an important foundational piece of the administration's self-image.   He sees "neo-cons" as the chief profits of the American evil messianic view which will eventually bring the country down.   But the truth is both far simpler and yet far more complex than this simple psycho-analysis.

It was not the United States who once attempted to dominate the world through an intricate web of colonial outposts.   That was the French, Portuguese, Germans, Spanish, Dutch, English, the Europeans.   True the Japanese, Russians, and others have histories which include attempts at world domination through military conquest and control.   The one historical "super-power" which does not is the United States.   We have engaged in wars whose goals have been to alter the political framework of countries, even regions, but we have never conquered and installed American long-term governance over any conquered region.   We have conquered governments and controlled regions for a time but we also hand the keys to the place back to natives.   The Europeans and other empire builders have almost always done so only after being physically coerced.   Europeans gave up on Asian and Middle East colonies only after rebellion.   America never plans for long-term colonial rule.   Such is the case as much today with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq as it was with Japan in the 1940s and 50s.

Europeans, including Lieven, for all their attempts to understand the psychology of America miss its essence.   The United States began as, has always been, and continues to be an essentially pragmatic endeavor.   Everything in the country's history and actions stems from pragmatism.   We embrace an ideology only so long as we see it working.   We eschew such fantasy as socialism and communism because it does not work rather than because we find it intellectually offensive.   We go out and make war only in an attempt to protect ourselves and our interests.   We believe in some fundamental philosophical underpinnings but they do not frame our actions in a vacuum.

The Brit.s, French and others made a mess of the Middle East and nearby Asia long ago.   They created an environment well suited to the reforestation of the land by anarchy once they removed their colonies.   They also persecuted an entire people via the folly of organic nationalism.   It was left largely up to pragmatic Yanks to clean up the mess.

In the process of cleaning up the European, post World War II mess, the United States in conjunction with the other vitors found that the best way to restore some security to the persecuted people - the Jews - was to restore the country and land they had occupied before Europeans kicked them out.   Arabs didn't like that idea and therefore made war and created a labyrinth of lies, even creating a mythical people called the Palestinians, to justify a struggle against it.   That struggle is at the core of the Islamic fundamentalist movement which continues to make war today.   That simple cause is at the root of why a bunch of men flew airplanes into an office and killed civilians.

European imperialists kick Jews out of homeland because Jews rebel against colonial authority.   Jews scatter to all corners of the world but concentrate in European ghettos where locals segregate them from the general population.   Europeans compete for domination of the world eventually attempting genocide of the Jews and engaging in war which draws the United States into giving most of its resources and much of its young men.   United States and other victors decide to recreate Israel.   Arabs decide they don't like that but can't defeat the Jews on the battle field so they create a "Palestinian people" out of whole cloth and engage in efforts to establish a Palestinian state as a ruse to push the Jews into the sea.   United States arms Israel and makes in nearly impossible for Arabs to succeed.   Small groups of Arabs go underground in attempt to terrorize Israel into collapsing.   When that doesn't work, Arabs begin terrorizing world to publicize the plight of the "Palestinian people."   When that doesn't completely work, Arabs begin attacking Israel's biggest ally, the United States.   United States attacks rogue states to put a stop to escalating attacks.   That's what happened here.   There is no attempt for some sort of American pan-colonial effort at world domination.

Anatol Lieven is wrong about America as so many other Europeans have been.   America is essentially pragmatic.   We never engage in anything for long unless it proves effective.   There is no messianic belief in anything except that pragmatism works!   It isn't about being "right or wrong."   That is overly simplistic thinking.   It is about what works best given the circumstances thrust upon us by centuries of European world domination.

Leftists do not like golf courses.   Leftists do not like sprawling suburban homes landscaped with green lawns, shrubberies, and tall trees.   They call this "sprawl" and claim that it is ruinous to the pristine environment the early settlers found when they first invaded the nature-harmonious "native Americans."   But what is the effect of all the greenery found on the North American continent?

Did you know that North America is a net "carbon sink" meaning the continent already absorbs ALL the carbon its denizens spew?   All that green you see from the air represents photosynthesis in progress.   The entire northeast forests which some claim were destroyed in the early 1900s have been restored.   In fact they are now much larger and robust than they were in this simpler time.

As you know, I often question the validity of whether or not the globe is warming.   But even when I accept that, I question whether it is due to anything man is doing or has done.   But even accepting that, I do not think Kyoto or anything which has been proposed so far has even a snowball's chance of making the slightest impact.   Apparently there is an abundance of alternatives which not only could remove all the excess carbon from the air but also enhance the beauty of population centers and improve everyone's quality of life.

If environmentalists really want to bring the planet's atmosphere back to the "balance" of carbon it had in say 1850, the answer is suburbanization.

Jamie Foxx implores you, "don't let the state of California execute Stanley Tookie Williams."   Many other celebrities and other folk claim Williams "can do more for society alive than dead."   Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Snoop Dogg, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Bianca Jagger, and Mike Farrell (MASH) are among Williams' supporters.   They cite his efforts to curb youth gang violence.   A Swiss legislator, college professors and others have even submitted his name for the Nobel peace prize!

Stanley Tookie Williams is a convicted murderer scheduled to be executed December 13.   He was a co-founder of the Crips gang.   He was convicted of killing a convenience store worker as well as two motel owners and their daughter during a robbery.   The state Department of Corrections claims Williams remains involved with the Crips despite his anti-gang books and other work.   A stepmother of one of his murder victims resents celebrity involvement.   She says, "I think most of them are abusing their popularity and their access to the media.   It's an agenda.   If they looked at the facts, then they'd realize Williams has not done anything to deserve clemency."

I am left wondering when someone's crimes rise to a level that they can be universally despised.   Are celebrities doing what they are here because they are against the death penalty?   Why can't they simply come out against the death penalty without championing one of the worst criminals in the history of this country.   He is a serial murderer.   He established one an organization of serial criminals.   Before he can possibly wipe out his past, he must walk on water, cure every sick person and inspire every human being on the planet to do charitable works.   Writing a couple books to temper his bad boys is just not enough.

How many people have had their fundamental rights as human beings violated by the Crips' organization?   How much in tax dollars has been spent only to fight the Crips' organization's crimes?   How many people have been sentenced to death by the Crips' organization?   At a bare minimum this is the legacy of Stanley Tookie Williams.

We cannot call Michael Jackson a child molester - he's never been convicted of that.   We can't say Michael's face is a plastic surgery nightmare - he's never owned up to having surgery on his face.   But we can speak about Michael's "inner beauty" since it is contained in his own song lyrics.

"They Don't Care About Us"
"Jew Me, sue me, everybody do me. Kick me, kike me."

And now we can hear him in a less "artistic moment."   A tape played on Good Morning America had Jackson saying, "They suck ... They're like leeches ... I'm so tired of it. ... It is a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."

According to Reuters, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is demanding an apology from Jackson about the comments.   I can understand that they are upset but why bother with an idiot like Michael Jackson.   He has become the "elephant man" but not in the sense of one who is outwardly ugly while inwardly beautiful.   Rather, Jackson has demonstrated that his plastic surgery is merely an attempt to show outwardly what his inner beauty looks like.   Unfortunately that plastic surgery has fallen woefully short of the hideous reality.

Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Defense Minister (1963-67), is outraged by U.S. actions he thinks may provoke a new world war.   He expressed his outrage in a speech made at the University of Toronto in September.   His speech ended with a standing ovation from the crowd.

Here are some of Hellyer's comments:

"UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

"I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."

"The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled. The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop."

"The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."

"The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today."

That's what we need, a real and informed debate about UFOs.   Let's lift the veil of secrecy the government of the United States has placed over its plans to take over the galaxy by engaging in unprecedented inter-galactic war!   We'll need to consult with ex-President Jimmy Carter who once reported a "close encounter" with aliens.

To their credit, the Senate of Canada says their schedule is too full to hold hearings of UFOs as several groups are now asking them to do.   But these groups are undeterred and will be persistent and again ask for hearings next year.   One group said, "Our Canadian government needs to openly address these important issues of the possible deployment of weapons in outer space and war plans against ethical Extraterrestrial societies."

Right!

Here's an interesting quote I found in a news article...

"Santa has a remarkably American accent (I guess he should be as non-national as possible). His voice isn't deep enough."

This was originally posted on an scrapbooking forum in regards to a website called, "Santa's Journal", which runs podcasts of the jolly old elf himself, talking about his day-to-day operations as CEO of the world's most famous toy factory.

So, exactly how does one speak as "non-national as possible"? If you don't speak in an American accent, how do you speak English with no accent at all?

The Santa Claus that we all imagine in our heads actually comes from two places: Clement Clark Moore, and Coca-Cola, both American institutions.

Moore wrote the poem "A Visit From Saint Nicholas" more commonly known as "The Night Before Christmas". Moore describes him in great detail, including this famous line...

He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

At the time Moore wrote this, there really wasn't a common understanding of what St. Nicholas looked like, except for what had been depicted by painters and writers before him. Keep in mind that Moore wrote this poem for his kids, and it stands to reason that he wanted to create an image that would fill their minds with wonder and joy.

In the decades that followed, companies commissioned artists to create advertising using the image of Santa Claus pitching their products. Being that Moore's depiction was the only popular one available, this is how the image of Santa Claus was solidified.

It wasn't until 1931 when Haddon Sundblom began painting a series of highly popular advertisement posters for Coca-Cola depicting Santa in full Americana form, that left us with the present day incarnation of the jolly old elf.

To sum it up, Santa Claus is who he is today because of the American way of life. The way we see him and understand him now, is an embodiment of American culture and enterprise.

I suppose Santa Claus is also personal to each of us. He does, in fact, keep a list with everyone's name on it, and he knows who's been naughty or nice. For that reason, each of us maintains a personal connection to him, giving us hope that he'll overlook the bad things we did, and remember all the good stuff.

If he's personal to each of us, then perhaps it makes us feel better to know that he speaks with the same accent as each of us do, and even the same language for that matter. But he still has the belly that shakes like a bowl full of jelly, and he still has the long white beard, and the red cheeks. And I guess he'll always drive a team of flying reindeer pulling a sleigh, and he'll always live at the North Pole.

And I suppose for that matter, I'll always picture him with a bottle of Coke.

I am Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.

The media is fond of trying to drive a wedge between the poor and "wealthy Americans."   They frequently describe the "millionaires in the Senate."   The press likes to speak of the growing gap in personal wealth of Americans.   I once read a report which said, "The percentage of all families with a net worth greater than $500,000 has been especially rapid, rising from 10.1 percent of all families in 1989 to 14.8 percent in 2001."   14.8 percent may have personal wealth over half a million and the ranks of millionaires presumably rose as well.   But is the term "millionaire" valid any longer?   The term is overused by the media as it no longer is an indicator of wealth.   Today being a millionaire means you get to completely deplete your savings in order to pay for your kids to attend college while a large percentage of their classmates will go to the same schools free of charge, on the government dole.

I suggest to you that the run-of-the-mill, newly-minted millionaire could not afford to have the boat pictured here.   Your typical millionaire can have a decent home valued somewhere near $500,000 and perhaps retirement / college fund / investments of another $500,000.   But if our archetypical millionaire is counting on his or her personal wealth to fund childrens' college tuition as well as retirement, there's gonna be some tough times ahead.   Like it or not, $1 million ain't what it used to be.

From what I have read online and off, Samuel A. Alito, jr. has amassed a personal "fortune" of something less than $1 million.   At one point I saw a report about his "mansion" in Caldwell, NJ.   It may not be readily apparent to folks who don't live in the New York City area but you cannot possibly own a home in northern New Jersey that qualifies as a "mansion" without being a millionaire.   $500,000 will get you a place to live but it won't be comfortable unless you live alone.   The image I saw created was of a guy who lives in the biggest house in town at the top of some hill.   There are such homes in northern New Jersey but they begin someplace around $2 million, usually more.   Since I haven't heard Alito described as a millionaire, I just have to assume that he owns your typical middle class suburban home.   Your typical modest home may cost less than $200K in Indiana but it costs well over $500K in northern NJ.

I tried to find a real estate listing at or near $500K in and around the area where Alito lives.   I couldn't.   Here is one listing of what I would call a nice, fairly large north Jersey home.   It has four bedrooms, 2.5 baths, about a half acre lot, but it was built in 1977 and from the looks of the siding, the overgrown landscaping, the lack of any decorative molding, and various other conditions in the photographs, I expect it needs about $50K in repairs.   The asking price of this home - it is not a mansion - is $749,000.   I imagine it will sell quickly at that price.   From what I know of the area, it is fairly typical, if a little small, of the area - there are thousands of much more expensive homes within a half hour drive of this one.

Another thing I have read about Samuel A. Alito, jr. is that he failed to recuse himself in a case in which one of the litigants was Vanguard, the mutual fund company.   Apparently Judge Alito holds part of his personal "fortune" in Vanguard funds.   Are you familiar with Vanguard funds?   Those are, for the most part, those low cost-ratio funds because they buy stocks which mirror some index or form as broad a cross section as possible in order to mimic some market as a whole.   I own some Vanguard funds.   I consider them as a better alternative than a bank account, low risk, low cost, decent return.

I have seen Alito's stock "wealth" held in Vanguard accounts as something ranging $300K to $500K.   The criticism of Alito is that he should have recused himself from a case in which the decision would have altered his personal wealth.   There are federal laws which require this and I agree with them.   It was a mistake on Alito's part.   But it is hardly an example of how wealthy people manipulate the system to benefit financially.   What did Alito stand to gain or lose depending on the outcome of this case?   Maybe a thousand dollars?

I don't know if Samuel A. Alito, jr. is actually a millionaire.   I would be surprised if he wasn't since just about any home in his area has risen to near that much.   But because the press hasn't demonized him as a "millionaire," you sort of have to assume he isn't.   It is easy to see why he wants to get a job on the nation's highest court since there is a generous pension associated with it.   If he doesn't find himself employment with a generous pension, when he retires, he is going to have to find himself a place to live in a low cost area.   Even if he does find a cheap place to live, he may still have to familiarize himself with the tastes of various brands of cat food since he likely will not be able to afford a decent retirement.

If you want to defeat Samuel A. Alito, jr., you are going to have to find something other than "he is one of the few wealthy Americans" - he is not.   You are also going to have to find a more egregious ethics violation than his being one of those rich judges who became wealthy by presiding over cases in which they had a substantial stake.   He may have done something against the rules but in sum total, it was a minor infraction from which he likely never saw dime one.

Today it seems as if the liberal press is trying a new tactic.   They are saying that Alito will not vote against your "constitutionally guaranteed right" to an abortion.   They are trying to get conservatives to question the guy's philosophical underpinnings.   None of the other arguments have stuck.   We'll see if this one has any legs.   But regardless of whether it sticks or not, the mere mention of it kind of puts a dent in the notion that his ideological viewpoints constitute "extraordinary circumstances" invalidating the gang of 14's agreement.

The Crawford Peace House held a rally yesterday to protest the Iraq war.   The Associated Press and other news agencies covered the story.   These sorts of stories always require a mention of the number of protesters in order to give the reader an idea of what is really going on.   But sometimes the numbers are not actually reported accurately.   And sometimes the numbers must be revised, quickly.

When peace protesters converged on Washington, D.C. just a short while ago, the press told us there were more than 100,000 AND they made sure we knew there were a mere couple hundred, perhaps less, at the counter protest.   Over time and after viewing numerous reports, we came to realize that while there may have been more than 100,000 protesters, not all that many were simply protesting the war.   In fact a very high percentage of the individuals in D.C. on that day were the same pro-communist or anti-American protesters which are mustered for almost any protest.

Yesterday the Associated Press must have had several reporters at the miniscule Crawford protest.   The reason I say that is because they revised the number of protesters two times. Initially the report I read said there were hundreds.   Then late last night I read 200 but at the same time I happened to flip over to CNN who said "less than 200."   But today I see in the paper an AP story which clearly says "fewer than 100 war protesters."   I suppose this could be written off as a post-Thanksgiving mental funk or maybe there were more than 100 reporters there which led to the confusion.   But I have to wonder whether there was any protest at all since the number keeps dropping and -0- is not far from the current figure.

Here's a thought, if somebody announced a protest against any conservative cause and thousands of reporters showed up for it, would any actual protesters have to attend in order to get the thing reported in a big way?   Would the headlines say "Thousands attend ---- protest?"   And if nobody was there to counter the report, would we ever know that nobody attended?

I am growing weary of the TV legal beavers displaying outrage over the plea deal attained by Debbie LaFave in Florida.   They claim this will color cases in which adult males sexually assault minor girls.   They claim Deb LaFave raped this boy in the back of that car while his cousin drove around town.   They say there is no difference between this and a 25 year old male teacher doing this with a female student.   I do think the woman is nuts for wanting to have sex with a teenage boy.   I think she should have done some time, possibly some serious time.   I don't think our society is wrong to treat this harshly.   But can we please get off this PC-induced notion that somehow she raped him?

Let's see the facts as they actually are.   This whole episode came about because the teenager's cousin told his mother about it.   When confronted, the teenager admitted what had been going on.   But keep in mind that the teenager bragged to his cousin that he was having sex with a "totally hot teacher."   The cousin didn't believe him.   So he proved it.   There doesn't seem to be even a slight element of coercion here.   I was a teenage boy once too.   I routinely fantasized about several of my young "totally hot" teachers from middle school on.   I found them completely arousing.   If you're a man, answer me honestly, did you have any sort of similar experience?   So, to recap, here we have a willing participant living out his fantasy, bragging about it, and then proving it was true to his cousin.   It is an unholy relationship but it does not smack of anything even remotely close to an adult teacher coercing a 15 year old girl into sex.

Now, let's get to a little deeper level for a second.   Obviously the way a male's anatomy works raises additional questions.   It is certainly possible for a man to rape a woman.   It is also possible for a man to rape a man.   I imagine it is also possible for a woman to rape a woman.   But I do not see, even for a second how it is possible for a woman to rape a man.   She can try and the result may very well be criminal sexual contact but in the end, the best she is going to be able to do is humiliate him and that's not what happened here.

I don't for a moment condone what Deb LaFave did to this kid, even if it constitutes one of my own darker fantasies when I was the same age.   We must not tolerate this sort of behavior.   We must punish men or women who conduct themselves thusly.   Deb LaFave should have done some time.   But don't try to force feed me that boys and girls are substantially similar.   They're not.   They are functionally opposite when it comes to sex.   It is physiologically impossible for a woman to force a boy to have sex.   Go ahead and complain about the fact that here a perpetrator got off without doing any time but don't lie to us.

Reading a press release about the rise in motorcycle sales, I found something that intrigued me...

Demand for all categories of motorcycles is expected to remain healthy, despite the slowdown in growth in key markets such as China, which is rapidly transitioning away from motorcycles and toward cars for its transportation needs.

I knew that the Chinese rode a lot of bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles, but I didn't know there's a trend towards ditching the two-wheeler for a four-wheeler.

I suppose this is going to create a larger demand for oil. You think gas prices are high now? Wait until China becomes heavily dependent on cars! They're already consuming a lot of oil for industrial purposes, and this is part of the reason why oil prices are going up.

I imagine China is experiencing something similar to our "urban sprawl". I haven't seen any news report about Chinese suburbs, but considering they're creating so many jobs near port cities, getting people to their jobs is probably becoming a tough little fortune-cookie to crack.

As a motorcycle rider myself, I can attest to the outstanding fuel efficiency bikes provide, and their cheap sticker prices. You can get a 1100cc motorcycle brand new for about $8,000, and will get you about 45mpg, just in city driving alone. For this reason, I've spoken out for removing the restrictive laws American states have on motorcycles, in attempt to reduce our demand for oil.

It'll be interesting to see how China reacts to the shift towards automobiles. With oil prices going high, they'l need to raise worker wages just so that they can afford gasoline. Or, they can just put their foot down in Chinese style, and make cars illegal.

This time, it's Tony Long, who writes for Wired, who asks the question, "Why is it that only a handful of states have made it illegal to talk on the phone while driving?"

The answer? Because cell phones don't drive cars Tony.

Tony first explained that he wrecked his motorcycle trying avoid a collision with a car. The person driving the car was in front of him, and just slammed on the brakes for seemingly no reason at all. He observed the driver holding a cell phone to her ear, and figured that had to be the reason.

So, when does someone slam on the brakes based on something they hear on the cell phone? Who knows!

The problem with legislating responsibility is that only responsible people abide the law. How do you create a law that converts irresponsible idiots into responsible citizens? They tried to solve prostitution by making it illegal, but did that stop people from turning tricks?

There's an old saying about guns: "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." That means that only the law abiding people will abide by a gun ban, and since when are we threatened by law abiding people?

Making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving a car will only protect us from responsible people, and those aren't the people we're having problems with. It's the people who don't give a f*** and the people who don't know s*** that we have to worry about.

I'd like to tell Tony that the American Automobile Association actually did a study on car accidents caused by driver distractions and found that adjusting the radio/CD player accounted for nearly 8 times more accidents than cell phone use.

But then again, I doubt he's reading this. Perhaps the lady driving the car was fumbling with her stereo. Maybe he ought to speak out against car stereos?

A man named Brian Warner of Little Egg Harbor, NJ was arrested a little over a year ago.   He was driving an oddly outfitted van.   Inside the van was a stun gun.   Members of the general public are not supposed to carry stun guns.   But from there, the plot thickens.   The windows of the van were covered with louvers so nobody could see what was going on inside.   The cargo area had no interior door handles.   Warner's possessions carried inside the van included rubber gloves, rope, bungee cords, a knife, gum, a large cooler filled with candy, children's toys, a steel cage, condoms, a telescope, and a police scanner.   The van had been sound-proofed and padded on the interior.   It was outfitted with motion detectors from underneath so that a person inside the van would know if someone approached it.   Neither the van itself nor the odd assortment of possessions are the reason Warner was arrested.

Warner was charged with three counts of attempting to lure two girls and a boy into his van, when the girls were 10 and 9 and the boy was 7.   Warner's attorney said in court his client had been watching and communicating with the children because he was concerned they were victims of sexual abuse.   Warner told police after he was arrested that he had given candy and toys to the youngsters and was concerned that the 8-year-old girl, was "promiscuous."   His attorney fought to have the statement excluded, argued that Warner liked to "tinker" with electronics, and that he was a friendly man with low-blood sugar, who gave candy and toys to the children and was concerned that the children were being abused.

Warner had stationed himself outside their apartment building and frequented the coin-operated laundry where the family washed their clothes.   The children testified that Warner was never invited to play with them but had approached them asking to play a game of tag.   The children testified that they saw Warner sitting in his van near their home on multiple occasions.   One girl testified that she saw him near her friend's house where he would "just sit there" for a "long time."   Warner also went to their home and asked the children to come downstairs to play with him, they said.   One of the children said Warner would call her by name, although she had never told it to him.   An attendant at the laundromat where the children's mother washed their clothes said she saw the children and Warner having numerous exchanges and had seen him give them candy.   After Warner was arrested, he called the landromat and told the attendant not to talk to police.

Brian Warner's trial ended in a hung jury.   Eleven voted to convict but one person held out.   The others said there was nothing they could possibly say which would ever convince her of the man's guilt.   Ordinarily I would be upset by this alone.   I cannot imagine a person seeing this "circumstantial evidence" and not believing the man should be convicted.   But what troubles me this morning is an editorial in which one Norman Le Comte, Jr. of Toms River, NJ wrote to say he was "appalled" that the 11 jurors attempted to "coerce" the woman into voting for a guilty verdict.   He says, "Convicting someone on nothing but circumstantial evidence would not only set a terrible precedent, it also goes against everything our justice system is supposed to stand for."

Mr. Le Compte's and the holdout juror's reasoning goes something like: there was no evidence presented that Warner ever attempted to stuff the kids into his van, nor bind their hands with the rope and bungee cords he had at the ready, nor hit them with the stun gun to force them into the steel cage in his van.   Our judicial system recognizes that sometimes, in pretty rare circumstances, the volume and nature of "circumstantial evidence" is such that more than mere circumstances are present.   For example, if a man displays an unusual amount of anger at his wife in public, says "sometimes I want to just kill her and anchor her body with cement boots out at sea," she goes missing, he has a recently purchased a bag of cement from which half is now used but there is no evidence of a cement work project on his property, he was seen taking his boat out to the sea at 3 o'clock in the morning, etc., we do sometimes convict such a man of murder.   It is easy to forget that part of what our justice system stands for is protecting the law-abiding members of society against lunatics.   Mr. Le Compte seems to forget that our system does not simply stand for not convicting someone because we didn't catch him in the act.   Had Mr. Warner's adventure escalated in its apparent direction, we would not be talking about "circumstantial evidence" unless we were unable to find the bodies.   Jurors must sometimes use their common sense and there is nothing antithetical with coercing a juror who doesn't seem to have any.

The prosecution will again attempt to convict Mr. Warner.   The odds may be in their favor as it seems unlikely that there are that many stupid people in society.   Then again, someone was nonsensical enough to actually write to a newspaper with their idiotic interpretations of law as Mr. Le Compte did.   You can have faith in our judicial system but sometimes that requires a great deal of effort.

As a final word, if you have children, you may want to copy the picture of Brian Warner.   Likely he won't be welcomed back into the community in which he has been living, if he is acquitted.   He may be moving to a town near you.   If he does, I imagine he'll bring his van.   Maybe he'll even park it outside your house because he is worried your grade-schooler is promiscuous.   Forwarned is forearmed.

Before you sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, before you all clasp hands and say some perfunctory prayer, take a moment and contemplate on the original story of Thanksgiving including Washington's original proclamation.   Then as you sit down and offer prayers, think about all that you have not merely from the opportunity provided by this land and country but also by the good works of your fellow citizens.   Consider how things might have turned out differently in a different land, under a different sort of government.   This is our day, not a day to consider opportunities in other countries.   I simply want to remind you to contemplate what it is we give thanks for on this day.   And if you offer up your prayers to Gaia, the evironment or "bing bang," so be it.   I won't try to convince you otherwise.   But please at least consider that the founders of this country contemplated a creator, a supreme being, when they created this holiday of Thanksgiving.

An interdisciplinary team of scientific researchers examined the available peer-reviewed papers on hurricanes, global warming and any interconnection between them and concluded there is no definite linkage between hurricane frequency or intensity and global warming.   The actual conclusion begins, "claims of linkages between global warming and hurricane impacts are premature."   Additionally, the paper says, "the peer-reviewed literature reflects that a scientific consensus exists that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small in the context of observed variability."   An important finding of this review is the conclusion that future damages to society caused by any global warming induced variability are expected to be dwarfed by societal increases in wealth and population.   Put another way, death and damage from hurricanes is closely associated to the number of people and amount of stuff in the way of hurricanes.

John Kerry has been called for jury duty.   If you are the defense attorney trying a case before him, all you need to do to get your client acquitted is to go out into the community and take a poll of people who think your man is innocent.   Kerry is easily swayed by polls.   But save this evidence for late in the trial.   If the prosecution gets wind of it, they may produce a contrary poll using a larger sample.   Once Kerry sees that, he is likely to vote for conviction.   But if you screw up and produce your poll too soon and the prosecution heeds my advice, fret not.   All you need to do is go out and produce another poll which you then deliver at the last minute.   Then Kerry should come back to your side again.

Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen is the butt of an attack by Moveon.org.   The political action committee has targeted him and 7 other members of Congress in a national advertising campaign because they support the war in Iraq.   The campaign is set to begin Thanksgiving.

Let Moveon.org know how you feel about this divisive campaign which demoralizes our troops and singles out many excellent representatives.   Write into their forum or contact them via the e-mail forms on their site and flood them with complaints.

Two New Jersey Republicans want to move a bill forward in the state's Assembly which would fine politicians for lying in political advertisements.   The bill would create a panel of retired judges to make a final decision regarding the truthfulness of ads.   Ads would be examined when a candidate complains he or she was lied about in the ad.   If an ad were found to be untruthful, a fine would be imposed and the lying candidate would have to run another ad correcting the lie.

I can envision candidates holding onto to their "personal attack" ads until the last few days of a campaign, then running them and when accused of lying challenging the decision endlessly until well after the campaign is over and the outcome determined.   Fines would be no more likely to ever be paid than the typical last month phone bill or other obligations of many local candidates.   And determining whether a candidates statements constituted lies is far more difficult than you might think.   If no political body ever actually reduces spending - most simply cut spending growth, when a candidate claims to be a budget balancer, isn't that a lie?   When one candidate accuses another of raising taxes, how do you define that?   Is it a tax increase when treasury receipts go up as a direct result of legislation?   If that's the measure than Bush increased taxes with his "tax cut for the rich" since the legislation caused tax revenues to increase.   And how exactly do we define the rich who received these tax cuts?   Anybody who makes over $70,000?

No, I don't think this law is workable.   Judging political candidates truthfulness is too difficult.   They are world class liars.

The Texas State Supreme Court ruled that the State's system of using property taxes to fund public schools is unconstitutional.

I don't know about enough about Texas' laws on taxation, nor do I know anything about its constitution. My guess is that the property tax system of funding public schools is no different in principle than it is in other states, but perhaps Texas' constitution is such that it creates a conflict.

But I wanted to throw out some observations.

Here in Southern California, there are families that utilize the public school system, when in fact they can easily afford private schooling. My niece tried to get her son into a private elementary school but was shut out due to a very limited number of seats available. So, she put him into a public school.

In fact, families all over Orange County, CA could just as well afford private schools, but can't get in due to a lack of supply. I don't know the laws and regulations on private schools, but it seems odd that there is such a huge demand, and not enough supply.

Also, what's wrong with public schools charging tuition? State-run colleges still charge tuition. Even if it was a nominal charge, of something like $500.00 a year, it would not only help fund schools, but would also encourage middle-income families to look into private schools.

There's also politics at play. In the town where I live, there are charter schools that have submitted applications to the local school board, but were denied because they were faith-based. Under the charter school system, private schools are allowed to set up, charge low tuitions, and get some additional funding from the public school fund.

There's also the illegal alien factor. When I grew up in Santa Ana, my next-door neighbor rented out his two-car garage to an illegal alien family. They had eight children in all, making it ten people total living in a two-car garage. They utilized the public school system, but didn't pay property taxes because they were renters.

The families who need the public school system the most, end up paying for it the least. Moreover, families who can afford private schools find themselves shut out due to a lack of supply. That's two reasons why our existing public school system is self-defeating.

I like the idea of using sales taxes to fund public schools instead.

I told you this a few months back but now there is an actual study which says biofuels are hastening the destruction of rain forest.   New Scientist reports that rising prices for palm oil, used in many biofuels, and increasing demand for biofuels in general are causing farmers to increase the amount of acreage dedicated to such crops.   Palm oil agriculture is the leading cause of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia.   Soybean oil is a good alternative to palm oil but this is the leading cause of destruction of South American rainforest.   Biofuels are "one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet," according to Simon Counsell, director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation.   Looks like we'll need another alternative.

Drudge and some others are reporting that last night CNN aired a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney.   Several times during the broadcast a large, bold black letter X appeared over Cheney's face and the words "CHENEY: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE." appeared below Cheney's blacked out image.   Drudge reports the X appeared for less than one second.

CNN was caught this time.   How many times have they done this in the past?

Followup:

Reuters issued an article in which they quote sources from CNN who report this was just a technical glitch.   They say the "X" was just a placemarker for technicians.   I know most computer programs have better means of holding place than that but I won't quivel.

"So, for all the conspiracy theories out there," a spokesman said, "that's not what this is about.   It's a computer bug that people deal with everyday.   It's just that ours was in front of millions of people."

You know when a person is caught in a lie, you have to question everything they say.   "In front of millions of people?"   CNN NEVER draws millions of people to any of its broadcasts.   It is lucky to pump it up over 500,000.   We believe you CNN.   There is no institutional bias in your reports!

John Kerry says, "We did not see the same intelligence and I challenge the vice president, I challenge him to answer the fundamental questions from the facts."   But John is implying that he was not privy to the "real intelligence" because this secretive Republican administration didn't share it with him.   He said, "The country and the Congress were misled into war. It is deeply troubling that the Republicans in Washington are so afraid to share the truth with the American people."   So presumably the only bad information he received came from Republicans in Washington.   John Kerry likes to talk to those same American people and act as if he has information the rest of us don't.   He can't have it both ways.

What about the pre-Bush statements Kerry made?   Bush was a governor way back then while Kerry was a US Senator, privy to intelligence information provided by a friendly administration, privy to information from Democrats in Washington.   What he said then is rather telling.   Kerry's comments, included a letter to President Clinton, were, "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

What did Kerry know that he thought President Clinton did not?   He felt it important to advise Clinton.   Presumably he thought he had information Clinton was missing.

In statements in the rum up to the war, Kerry continued to imply that he had information nobody else did.   He said in October 2002, "I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." and "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

In January, 2003 Kerry said, "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

From 1998 until fairly recently Kerry was firm in his knowledge that Saddam had WMD.   Much of this knowledge was obtained prior to Bush coming to power.   He was a member of the Senate Committee on Intelligence during much of this time.   And he didn't have access to the same intelligence the President did?   So, OK, maybe John didn't have complete access.   Why did he always speak as if he did?   Was he trying to fool his constituents into believing that he was a powerful man working on the inside when he was just some flub mid ranger, faking his way through his days in office?   I think I can accept that.

The shooter at a Tacoma, Washington mall told police to "just follow the screams" to locate him within the mall.   The title of this story all over the web contains this phrase but my morning paper said "Accused Tacoma mall shooter had troubled childhood."

Why is this characterization relevant?   The body of the story itself only has one reference to this supposed root cause of the violence.   That statement says, "he had been humiliated during a troubled childhood."   Who exactly was not ever humiliated during childhood?   How many people refer to their childhood as "perfect?"   How many people do not see their childhood as a trying and difficult, perhaps troubled, time?   When can we stop giving compassion to perpetrators of crimes and instead focus our positive attention on the victims?

I am naive when it comes to the working of labor unions.   I picture a factory or store where unions are not yet in place and uniond representatives come along with an effort to organize the workers.   Then there is a vote and either the workers are then unionized because the vote passed or not because the vote failed.   End of story, right?   Once a union is installed, they collect fees from the labor force in order to fund operations which consist chiefly of negotiating new collective contracts and handling worker grievances.   It can, obviously, get more complicated than that as unions often promote worker conditions and safety via legislation and other means.   That's why unions are so political.   But I am offended when unions repeatedly advocate candidates who do nothing specifically for labor.   I am even more offended when I see unions trying not so much to organize labor at a particular business but rather to bring that business down.   That is what unions are doing with respect to Wal-Mart.

My morning paper is carrying an Associated Press story entitled "Wrong prices charged at Wal-Mart."   The story quotes "two union-commissioned university studies."   What business do labor unions have funding studies to persecute Wal-Mart for charging incorrect prices?   The study found that about 7% of prices rang up incorrectly.   Having worked in retail for more than a decade, I find that extremely hard to believe but who am I to question an unbiased university study?   The study also found that the errors were in both directions - prices rang up both lower and higher than posted prices.   No surprise there but it does indicate there is no "conspiracy" to make obscene profits by defrauding the customer.   And in my experience if you buy something which rings up for the wrong price, you simply open your mouth and the thing gets fixed - you pay the lower price.

The article goes on to note the unions which commissioned the studies were the same ones which had been unsuccessful organizing Wal-Mart employees.   Unions can attempt to organize workers by effectively communicating with them.   Unions can picket.   But at what point have we crossed the line of what is acceptable?   Will unions next begin to shop lift and then return goods to bring Wal-Mart down?   Why is the press a willing partner in an effort not to organize labor but to bring down another business?

China did not sign the Kyoto Protocol plan to reduce greenhouse gases to levels more comparable with the 1960s - 1970s.   China supports the agreement, they are just unwilling to participate.   They condemn the United States for not actively participating and they become angry at the suggestion that the Protocol be scrapped in favor of starting a new agreement.

Without China's participation, the entire reduction of greenhouse gases by all participating countries combined will be overshadowed by China's increased emissions alone.   Obviously China would be interested in anything which slows the "developed world" while they are trying to catch themselves up.   But what else might cause China to not want to participate?

There is much worry across the globe that global warming will increase the incidence and severity of weather disasters.   That seems to be the largest focal point of environmentalists who insist we must act even before we are sure global warming is even being caused by man.   The general attitude seems to be one of panic - almost a sky is falling point of view.   Environmentalists and others want to eventually restore the world's carbon emissions to the levels they were when there was a "pristine natural state" on the planet - say the early 1900s.   China seems unconcerned.   Maybe that's because the sky has been falling for a very long time in China.   Here is a not very complete list of weather disasters in the 85 year (1876-1961) period during which the environment's pristine condition slowly degraded to the "unnatural state" it is in 2005.

I pulled this brief list together using a variety of sources including the World Almanac, Wikipedia, and various other on and offline texts.   It is not nearly intended to be exhaustive.   But note that in this period nearly 100 million Chinese people died at the hands of mother nature.

• 1876 - drought and famine killed an estimated 9 million people.
  
• 1877 - flooding of the Yellow River kills 900,000.
  
• 1881 - typhoon killed nearly 300,000
  
• 1887 - flooding of the Yellow River kills an estimated 1 million.
  
• 1907 - famine killed 24 million
  
• 1911 - flooding of the Yangtze River killed 100,000.
  
• 1928 - drought causes the deaths of around 3 million.
  
• 1931 - flooding of the Yangtze River killed 3.7 million.
  
• 1935 - flooding of the Yangtze River killed 145,000.
  
• 1936 - famine killed 5 million
  
• 1939 - flooding killed half a million
  
• 1941 - drought starved 3 million to death.
  
• 1954 - flooding of the Yangtze River killed 30,000.
  
• 1959 - typhoon killed 2,000
  
• 1959 - flooding killed 2 million
  
• 1959 to 1961 - between 25-35 million dead of starvation
  

Again, please consider that this list represents a small portion of the historical weather disaster record in China.   Tens of thousands of tropical cyclones have hit the country and much of that record is still under study by climatologists.   Weather has always been severe in China.   Perhaps they are thinking that if global warming changes weather maybe that would be a good thing!   Then again, maybe they recognize the climate and weather for what it is, extremely variable.

I want you to judge for yourself whether Republicans are pulling a political stunt or not.   Please consider the following:

On Thursday John Murtha said (in part):

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.'

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency.

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a 'free' Iraq."   Full text

On Friday, House Republicams forced a vote on the following resolution:

"That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Murtha went on Tim Russert's show on Sunday and said, "Let me predict this. We're going to be out of there, we're going to be out of there very quickly, and it's going to be close to the plan that I'm presenting right now."

I'm not sure what I am missing.   I know I must be missing something because Democrats say this was a stunt.   On one day a leader of the minority party makes a speech suggesting something.   The next day, after nobody in his party suggests a vote on the very substance of what the man said, the majority party decides to put essentially the same principle up for a vote.   Only three guys in the minority party vote against the non-binding resolution.   The very man who espoused the opinion does not vote for the essence of his suggestion.   Who is pulling a stunt here?

The resolution was quite simple.   It contained the major thrust of Murtha's statement.   It is at least a start in that very direction yet it is voted down by a tsunami from both parties.   Had the resolution passed, presumably Murtha could have packaged up his complete "plan" and put that out for negotiation and a vote.   So why was he not happy?   Why were the anti-war types not happy?   Maybe their words were the real political stunt here.

Obviously these are not revelations to you but the thought is more than a little significant that the entire prose of the Democratic party regarding the war has been a political stunt.   They are screwing with the defense of this country.   They are screwing with the morale of our nation's military forces.   There can be no question about it any longer.

Is anyone really surprised that Camden, NJ is the nation's most dangerous city?   Have you ever been to Camden?   The place is a shithole.   Camden and numerous other Democrat-controlled New Jersey cities are big enough shitholes to compete for worst place in the United States to live.   Note that I said Democrat controlled.   It is no ordinary Democrat majority in New Jersey's shitholes.   It is a super majority.   And Democrats have no interest in cleaning these places up because if they did, the quality of the populace would improve and likely vote out Democrats.

The real surprise is that another New Jersey shithole didn't beat them out this year.   It is difficult to hold onto such a position.   You really have to do a completely shitty job of things.   Luckily Camden has significantly inept leaders.   In this year in particular it is very difficult to demonstrate incompetence on a par with what New Orleans demonstrated.   Camden succeeded.

I'm going to be filled with awe this Thanksgiving.   We're hosting the meal with several family members and one guest (boyfriend of a relative).   This gentleman is an enlisted man in the Air Force who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.   I am reminded that he volunteered for duty with the armed forces.   I'll offer him wine and beer and victuals that my earnings have purchased.   But that will not nearly be representative of the service he has provided to me, my family and this country.   I will be in awe of him.

In every population of people, there are a select few who are truly brave.   These few often pave the way for the rest of us schleps.   The media is filled with commentary telling us that the armed forces are having trouble meeting their recruitment goals.   What does that say about those who are volunteering?   As you sit down for Thanksgiving dinner, please put aside any feelings you have about this war and say a prayer for those who represent us in far off lands.   If you have the opportunity to invite someone who has done service in one of these far off battlefields, remember to give them a little something extra after the wine has been poured and the meal served.   Remember to give them your thanks.   They stand as your representative.   You should stand in awe of them.

The end of 2005 is coming quickly.   It is a time to reflect back on the past year and perhaps even further.   I get nostalgic about a simpler time.   I long for the days when gas was under a buck, cigarettes and booze were still cheap, and terrorism was just an inconvenience.

I remember one day when I was on my way back from seeing a prostitue after buying some drugs with money I had stolen from an elderly man.   I was driving down a ghetto street when all of a sudden a bunch of under-educated fellows who really just needed some advanced drug rehab began throwing bottles into the street in an attempt to flatten my tires so they could assault me and maybe even steal some money.   Man, was that an inconvenience but I got out alive.   I was terrified.   That was exactly the feeling I had when the Islamic freedom fighters tried to bring down the WTC in 1993.   Those were the good old days when we could actually laugh about how inept those stupid terrorists were.   I long for the good'ole days.   I long for a time when terororism was just an inconvenience like prostitution, drugs, etc.