Cease-fires and truces are great things.   They work where you have two equally matched armies fighting over the same small piece of land while inflicting huge casualties upon each other.   This is not what is happening in the Middle East today.   What has happened in the Middle East is one army, hidden and somewhat protected behind a civilian population has chosen to be the aggressor against the civilian population of a country, Israel.   In intelligent circles, that's called terrorism.   So what we have hear is truly the international terrorism movement engaging in open warfare.   And those who side with the cause or supporters of terrorism.

Hezbollah chose the time and place for its aggression.   They chose to lob missiles, bombs and bullets at Israeli civilians.   The Israelis are merely defending their civilian population.   Proportionality is not relevant.   Proportionality is never relevant when speaking of terrorism.   If terrorists could muster enough force to engage in real warfare, they would.   They can't so they engage in attacks against civilians.   Israel is engaged in a fight against terrorism.

The only end to this conflict is either Hezbollah's success at their stated goal of driving the Jews into the sea or Israel's success at destroying Hezbollah.   All the calls for a cease-fire are either a matter of taking sides with Hezbollah whose butt is being properly kicked or the advocacy of short-term peace at the cost of long-term unending war.   Calling for a cease-fire is the act of supporting a terrorist network.

The seeds of this conflict may very well be the need to take international attention away from Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. &nbs; These countries, who have been the focus of many of the world's powers for months and years, would like everyone to look in another direction.   Or this may be to further destabilize the Middle East to open a second front on the international war on terror.   But, whatever its causes, this particular conflict involves an aggressor who deserves to be beaten as much as Germany or Japan deserved to be beaten in World War II.

The only cause served by the creation of an artificial cease-fire is the cause of the aggressor.   Hezbollah and many of those calling for it understand that fact just as surely as Hitler understood how to manipulate a good cease-fire in Europe.   But if the world had called for the British to be calm and stop firing back when London was being bombed, everyone would have laughed.   Similarly, if the world had called for the US to stop and consider the ramifications of initiating a cease-fire the day after Pearl Harbor, nobody on this side would have listened.   Nobody in Israel or on Israel's side of this conflict should listen now.   Only those who fear the complete destruction of Hezbollah should even utter such empty phrases.   So we should all pay attention when Kofi Annan and others call for a cease-fire.   They are identifying themselves with the cause of terrorism.   They are supporting the global movement with which we are at war.   They are spokespersons for the enemy.

I despise pandering.   All our elected representatives from both parties do it routinely.   When it doesn't effect actual laws, I suppose I can live with it.   When it does, it drives me nuts.

I'm pretty sure the House's passing of an increase to the minimum wage will go nowhere.   Even Senate Democrats are opposed to it thanks to the Republicans attaching estate tax reduction to it.   But this was a piece of legislation passed right before everybody goes out and hits the campaign trail.   If, when they come back after the break, it dies, they won't care even a little.   They just needed something to talk about while campaigning.

However, an increase to the minimum wage is looking like a Democrat platform issue this election cycle.   The Dem.s speak of a "living wage" somewhere along the lines of ten bucks.   This sounds like a good thing for the little guy but it is a lose, lose proposition for a good part of the Democrat base.   The people who are hurt by an increase are seniors.   The benefits to "working poor" are nil.

The thing holds only the promise of rippling through the economy as an inflationary pressure.   First you raise the min wage, then union contracts up for negotiation are increased off that base.   Then everyone else demands a raise.   Prices climb as dollars in the hands of purchasers exceed supply of goods.   Inflation wipes out the increased wage and only seniors, who do not get a raise, are left holding the bag.

And who are these minimum wage workers?   They aren't one job heads of family.   They are teenagers and guys and gals working a second job.   Some of them will benefit temporarily by the increase.   But then, as prices rise and jobs eliminated, they'll either be back where they were or out of the second job.   Nobody benefits from this ridiculous political ploy.

Reuters reports of Kenya's big, messy, corruption problems, all focused around greed.

The governor of Kenya's Central Bank, on trial for money laundering.

Kenya's biggest supermarket chain is accused of massive tax evasion.

Two long-running graft cases worth more than $1.2 billion that have forced the resignation of three ministers in President Mwai Kibaki's government this year.

This is because Western nations continue to pour donations into Africa. Throwing money at a problem only seems to make those in charge more wealthier, and more greedier. We learned this with Saddam Hussein and the "Oil for Food" scam.

As far as I'm concerned, only two things are going to help the starving Africans, and that's either invading those countries, and turning them into US territories, OR, stop donating funds and force them to provide for themselves.

I mean, for how many decades have Americans been urged to donate money to starving Africans? And yet they're still starving, and still having more babies?

I vote to stop sending money. We just don't have the unity to boot corrupt governments out of power.

The People for the Efficient Termination of Animals (PETA) is complaining that George W. Bush is breaking the law by not forcing our military to accomodate people's pets in the evacuation of Americans from Lebanon.

While our military is evacuating Americans out of Lebanon, those Americans are not allowed to brings their pets with them.

Certainly a sad story. As a pet owner, I hate to see these animals left to fend for themselves in a war torn country.

But I can't help seeing the irony in PETA using this scenario.

PETA is still the same organization that euthanizes tens of thousands of perfectly healthy, perfectly adoptable, dogs, cats, and other animals. They put them to death! This is also the same organization that takes your donations on the notion that they're animal lovers. Read the facts.

PETA has launched a new media campaign pitting itself as the lone savior providing a voice to the hundreds of dogs and cats abandoned in the streets of Lebanon. It's even urging everyone of us to write letters to George W. Bush pleading for him to "stop breaking the law".

What law? There is no law requiring the federal government to accomodate pets in an evacuation.

And with this, PETA looks really good, and ends up looking like a great organization to donate money to.

In reality, they use that money to euthanize more dogs and cats. Why? Because PETA believes the answer to animal suffering is get rid of animals! There's too many of them! It's backwards-thinking, but sadly that's their platform. The fact is that these animals being left behind in Lebanon, are better off there than in the hands of PETA.

Don't fall for the scam! Next time PETA asks you for money, I recommend to instead donate it to an animal rescue organization in your neighborhood. Animal rescues take in abandoned animals and actually nurse them back to health, and give them a permanent home until someone adopts them. Find a list of animal rescues on PetFinder.

***

Previous articles about PETA...

• Petition to Remove Tax-Exempt Status From PETA, Jun 21, 2005


• PETA Employees Arrested for Animal Cruelty, Jun 17, 2005


• Company Sues PETA for Fraud and Conspiracy, Jun 7, 2005


• Fish Have Feelings Too, Nov 22, 2004

The House today voted overmelmingly and in bipartisan fashion for a non-binding resolution "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, ..."   The vote tally was 410 yeas, 8 nays, and 4 present (short for I'm against it but I'm too much of a coward to say that publicly).

Those voting against the resolution were:

Neil Abercrombie (D Honolulu)
John Conyers Jr. (D Detroit)
John D. Dingell (D Dearborn)
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D Detroit)
Jim McDermott (D Seattle)
Ron Paul (R Surfside)
Nick J. Rahall II (D Beckley)
Fortney Pete Stark (D Fremont)

Those chickening out were:

Marcy Kaptur (D Toledo)
Dennis J. Kucinich (D Cleveland)
Barbara Lee (D Oakland)
Maxine Waters (D Los Angeles)

If you feel this was a "no brainer" and one of these 12 people belong to your district, consider that your elected official has no brains.   Unless you're bordering on brain death, consider casting a vote against one of these jerks when they next come up for election.

I suppose I fit the definition of totally 100% insane.   I keep expecting a different outcome from the world's news agencies.   I suppose I have gone completely mad.   It is just too much to expect the media to report news with a modicum of journalistic integrity.   Is it really too much to ask the newsies to report the news?   They pretend they are simply reporting all the news that's fit to print.   Yet every time I turn around, all I get is one side of any story.   The supposed independent press always has an opinion.   They always have an angle.   They always have an agenda.   And today that angle, that agenda is anti-Israel.

Today the AP reports that Military analysts question Israeli bombing."   The reports say "Thousands of Israeli bombs have fallen on Lebanese homes, roads, bridges, ports, broadcasting towers and even a lighthouse.   Nearly 300 people, mainly civilians, have been killed.   ...   Analysts say Israel's targeting of civilian and government infrastructure overshadows its strikes on the offices and rocket launchers of Hezbollah guerrillas, whose capture of two Israeli soldiers triggered the attacks.   ...   the growing list of civilian casualties - despite Israel's use of U.S.-designed precision-guided bombs - could turn Arabs and others against the Jewish state and its key ally, the U.S., and still not fatally wound Hezbollah."

What about the Israeli civilians killed not just in recent days but throughout the past many decades?   What about the fact that Hezbollah's reason for being is to kill every Jew it can find?   What about all the attacks exclusively targeting Israeli civilians which Hezbollah and just about every other Arab group has engaged in?   What about the fact that Hezbollah deliberately places its military arsenal in heavily populated civilian areas precisely so that Israel has to attack civilian areas in order to take them out?   Does that tactic bare any of the blame for those civilians who have been killed?

What the hell is Israel supposed to do in this situation?   What would you do if you were one of the leaders whose people were the subject of so many overtly genocidal efforts?   Would you just take it or would you fight back and worry about collateral damage later?   And which "Arab people and others" might be turned against the Jewish state?   Which Arab people are there that are not hell bent on "driving the Jews into the sea?"   Does that mean they want them to go for a good swim or does that mean they want them to drown?   Where is the coverage of the numerous direct links between Hezbollah and Nazi ideology?   When is the media going to tell us that Hezbollah leaders publicly espouse the murder of one group of people, their historical next door neighbors?   Where are the reports of how "experts" link Hezbollah with Adolph Hitler?   When are we going to demand that any media company which asserts rights under the US Constitution simply must tell the truth and cannot take one side to every argument?

Tell us the goddamn truth now!

A U.S. District Judge in Maryland has overturned the so-called "Wal-Mart law" which required companies over a certain size to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes.   Wal-Mart was the only company over that certain size.   The judge recognized the law for what it was, a levy targeted at one company.   Such practices are no more legal than say creating a tax on any person named John Malkovich, living at such and such address.   Liberals thought this one up absent any reasonable standards of law or Constitutionality.   They want the world's largest retailer to pay money into the government so the government can provide healthcare to those without it who freely agree to take jobs at Wal-Mart at established rates of pay without any insurance benefits.   That ought to be offensive to anybody living in a free, capitalistic society but apparently there's a bunch out there who thinks this sort of thing is perfectly alright.   Shame on them!

The market rallied across almost all sectors today on news the fed sees inflationary pressures in check.   Almost every publicly traded company's stock went up today.   On the losing side, however, was the New York Times whose stock slid almost 2% after doing about the same the day before on poor earnings news.   Circulation was up slightly last quarter but even with an increased audience, the company couldn't manage to make much money.

No taxation without representation.   That's simple enough isn't it?   The concept is one of the most important principles our nation was founded upon.   We elect our government officials and demand they account for the money they collect from us.   They don't do a great job of accounting and we perhaps don't do that good of a job at making our elected officials accountable.   But the principle is a central part of our system of government.   So, what should we do when the United Nations tries to tax us without the requisite representation?   Write your representatives.

The Washington Times points out today how the UN is actively trying to tax us.   Our Congress may act to prevent the slightest attempt to do this by enacting legislation "which prohibits the Treasury from paying dues to the U.N. if it attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on U.S. citizens.   The action has now shifted to the Senate."

You have a choice to make on this one.   Will you leave it up to your Senator or will you demand that he or she act on this legislation?   If you're OK with the UN taxing us because our elected representatives' sway over the UN is good enough, I've got a bone to pick with you.   The UN is not a true democracy.   It is a cooperative affair.   And if you think totalitarian regimes ought to control your money, why don't you just move your family into a country with a dictator.

The UN is not an elected body which represents you.   You cannot sit idly by as they tax you.

The Associated Press reports that New York City's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg has ordered it's Department of Homeless to break up homeless encampments under highways and bridges and train trestles, and telling the occupants to leave the streets.

The solution he's offering is to encourage them to take advantage of city services...

Outreach workers will "humanely, respectfully and firmly" encourage them to stop living on the streets and take advantage of city services like housing assistance, substance treatment programs and shelters, the mayor said.

But let's look at this once more. Despite the fact the city already offers these assistance programs, it still has a problem with an estimated 3,800 people living on the streets.

Obviously, such assistance programs are not working to solve homelessness.

These people are homeless because they choose to be homeless. That's all it is. They PREFER to be homeless. They're fed up with the system, tired of working, tired of paying taxes, tired of their moral responsibilities. They'd live as recluses up on some mountain, except they'd prefer to get the free assistance offered through the generosity of private groups and public services.

Yes, in a free society we DO have a problem with homelessness. But it's because our society allows private charities to offer free food, shelter, and clothing. And those charities are great. But we don't need the public assistance programs to exacerbate the problem. As it is now, Americans can afford to be homeless.

And that's just it isn't it? New York City has 3,800 homeless people, because New York City has made it possible for them to survive.

My solution is to take away the free chow, the free shelter, the free healthcare, and then I guarantee you'll see these people do one of three things...

1. Walk away from New York City,
2. Get off their butts and take care of themselves, or
3. Commit crimes to provide for themselves.

If they do the latter, we already have community work programs where they can pick up trash off the highways. At least they'll be doing us some good.

I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong.   A few weeks ago I said something along the lines of "there is no such thing as a job Americans are unwilling to do."   That's pure rubbish and I'll tell you an anecdote which explains my change of opinion.

I have known quite a few illegal migrant farm workers and generally found them to be an agreeable lot.   These fellows snuck into the country to work on SoCal fruit ranches, picking peaches, cherries and other hot weather fruit.   They lived in deplorable conditions but never complained.   They sent what amounts to huge sums of money when considered in light of their home conditions back to their spouses to support fairly large families.   They hoped to save enough money to better their standard of living at home, eventually returning there after a year or two here.   A few stayed here longer, some permanently settled here.   But as a white, anglo-saxon male, I respected their work ethic and made friends with some.   They, as a general rule, would hand you their last can of beer even when their pockets were completely empty of money and did so often.   They worked hard, bettered their circumstances and were entirely friendly, generous, and respectable human beings.   But that's not the point of this writing.

Today I wanted to get my car serviced in anticipation of a nearly 1,000 mile journey via automobile at the end of the week.   I went to the lube center to get an oil change and have several other items on the car checked out.   It was 97 with relatively low humidity around noon.   The workers toiled away in probably worse heat inside the garage which had no air conditioning.   They were white guys native to the area.   From there I went to a self-service car wash but found the self-service feature had been removed.   But I wanted my car cleaned so I paid the extra money to let them do it.   After the general washing, three workers went to town wiping the water off the car, applying wax, etc.   They worked outside where it was blistering hot.   They were apparently Mexican illegals and not a one of them ever complained about the heat.   They exerted great effort to make sure my car was spotless, working maybe 150% of the effort that was necessary.

My next stop was at the tire place I have patronized for over 17 years, Stafford Tire Center in Middletown, New Jersey.   I pulled up to the lift, got out, and asked the worker there to "please check out my tires and rotate them because I have a long drive at the end of the week."   He replied, "I'll check'em but I'm not gonna rotate'em."   I looked at him and he added, "DO YOU WANT TO STAY OUT IN THIS HEAT?"   I said, "huh?"   He ran his hand over the tires and said "they're fine, come back later if you want'em rotated."   I was dumfounded.   This guy couldn't be bothered doing what I have always had done for 17 years at his place of business because it was too hot.   "If I want the tires rotated?"   Isn't that what I asked for?   I appreciate the fact that it was hot out but it wasn't that hot.   the other equally hot places had no trouble providing their equally taxing services.   Why couldn't this place?   I wasn't sure whether they charge for this service or not but I had decided that if they do not, I was going top tip the guy who serviced the car $20.   I had the twenty in my hand as he spoke down to me with utter disgust.   I was glad this happened.   I'll never go back and I saved the twenty bucks this guy didn't deserve.

If you're not open for business, close up and stop acting as if you're open.   If your workers can't stand the heat, hire some Mexican guys.   They would have done the job, done it well and completely, and had smiles on their faces as they went about their business.

You've got to love the New York Times.   Long after the organized shootin war is over, they still have embedded journalists hard at work capturing the action!

Hey wait a minute, that's not a US soldier.   That's .... an insurgent.   That's not a legal combatant.   That's a criminal.   That guy is shooting at US Troops.   And the Times is providing aid and comfort to him by publicizing his .. uh .. "bravery."   Are they allowed to do that?

How would we react if the Times had an imbed with the 9-11 terrorists taking pictures as the plane approached the WTC and sending those back into the paper's news bureau via electronic signal?   Would we just buy the paper to see the wonderful pictures of bravery in action?   Or would we burn the Times building and every thing and person inside to the ground?

The Times is a very spoiled little brat who is now endangering the very institutions they claim to protect.   They've long since crossed over the line of decency, patriotism, and reasonable journalism.   You can't accompany a man bent on burning an apartment building down, then sit by while taking pictures as he spreads gasoline, lights the match and starts the fire.   This "newspaper" is building a strong case against a free press.   We cannot sit idly by as they break down institutions critical to the survival of our democracy.   Somebody is going to have to stop them.

Do you remember the scene in a Monty Python movie in which a guy loses a sword fight having his legs and arms completely chopped off?   He yells at the attacker who has beaten him badly, "come back and fight you coward."   Of course the guy doesn't come back and fight because there's no point.   The guy is making a threat he cannot possibly back up.   That's what the UN just did with respect to North Korea.   They passed a resolution which condemns the acts of a rogue state and put no muscle, no valid threat behind it.   It was a horse designed by committee.   They left the mouth of the condemnation toothless because China and Russia wanted it that way.   With every act the UN makes which contains no real force, the thing becomes weaker and weaker.   We are watching the death of an institution which has barely made it to the half century mark.   IMHO, the UN will be defunct before it reaches the age of 100.

French President Jacques Chirac has appointed himself spokesman for "most Europeans."   He did so as he declared Israeli response to the kidnapping of its citizens disproportionate.   Apparently, despite his waning popularity, Chirac believes he holds a window onto not just the sniffeling French soul but also that of Germans, Spaniards, Russians, etc.   Chirac is just such an every man.   Is it just me or does he remind anyone else of the frenchman, pictured in the frequently aired WWII video, seen crying as the Nazis take over Paris?   This is such an archetypically French attitude.   Condemn everyone for defending themselves and then, when you are under attack, stand around crying waiting for others to help you.

Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream unveiled its new anti-war media campaign dubbed, "Federal Budget Priorities Campaign".

The popular left-wing frozen confection says that they want to help Americans decided for themselves how to more equitably slice the proverbial pie. The goal is to heighten awareness of the money the Pentagon spends on nuclear weapons vs. a shortfall of spending on basic unmet needs of children...

"We can do much better for America's children", says Walt Freese, Ben & Jerry's CEO. "Many military experts agree that up to $13 billion can be cut from nuclear arms spending without compromising national security. These funds should be redirected toward programs such as universal child health care, immunization programs, and Head Start - at no additional taxpayer expense."

How does Ben & Jerry plan to spread its message? With a new ice cream flavor of course!

The new flavor aptly named, "American Pie", is an apple flavored ice cream loaded with pieces of apples and pie crust. The lid of the carton of this new flavor displays a pie-chart illustrating the "food for thought" that Ben & Jerry's wants to call to attention.

In addition, the company is planning a multi-city road tour running through Washington, D.C., New York, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Portland, which will give away samplings of the new flavor.

There will also be a nationwide postcard writing campaign, where visitors to Ben & Jerry's Scoop Shops will be urged to send postcards to Congress to asking lawmakers to consider Ben & Jerry's words of wisdom.

Ben & Jerry's return to social awareness comes on the heels of a publicity blunder, when it pissed off thousands of Irish Americans for launching its "Black & Tan Ice Cream" on St. Patrick's Day, the day when Irish celebrate their heritage. While the flavor was meant to celebrate the famous beer beverage, it instead reminded Irish folks of the atrocities they suffered at the hands of the English. The company later issued an apology after the matter was publicized by Reuters.

If you want to see the message behind American Pie, visit Ben & Jerry's American Pie webpage.

The AP has its eyes on the prize, casting off the Republican controlled Congress.   The latest poll shows this to be a strong possibility with even some conservatives saying they'll vote Democrat in the next elections.   But congressional districts are complicated.   A simple poll of 1,000 people does nothing to show how the specific seats will be won.   Even the AP is hedging its bets, saying, "polls in 1994 - when a Republican tidal wave swept Democrats from power - the two parties were in a dead heat in July on the question of whom voters preferred in their district."   While congressional job approval ratings are in the sewer, you do have to ask yourself what the prospective replacements are going to do to better.

One likely early target will be the "tax cuts for the rich" which removed the marriage penalty and caused tax collections to balloon.   The fact that our economy is in great shape just a few years after the economically devastating attacks on the World Trade Center will go largely unmentioned.   And when the economy shrinks backwards, economical cycles and the price of oil will be blamed.

After that, a Democrat controlled congress will probably bring the boys home - all the boys including the fundamentalist Muslim boys with bombs strapped to their backs.   Of course, Bush's proactive policy will be blamed since he obviously made many more terrorists than he killed or captured.   And at least some of the tactics the administration is using in the war on terror will be unwound although fewer than expected since even the Democrats realize these things are necessary.   But once the liberals gain control of Congress, there will be even more leaks of classified information to the New York Times making the war virtually impossible to wage.   No matter.   Those suicide bomber attacks are really Bush's fault.

Once that liberal mission is accomplished, the Dems will probably work to bring down any fence across the Mexican border and then send out invitations letting our poor neighbors know we do want them to visit us anytime they wish.   After all the reason they come here is just about getting a better life.   If that means our nation's teachers have to know two languages, so be it.   They are very smart progressive people.   And there is no official national language anyways.

Then the lib.s will begin work on the most pressing issue of our time which is how to encumber the US economy while making less fortunates, like the Chinese, succeed.   Maybe a huge gas tax to bring down all those carbon emissions and save the world while the Chinese burn more coal.   The verdict is, after all, in, isn't it?   Global warming is the most pressing problem and it is America's fault.

After that, we'll get a higher minimum wage so the starving but working poor can have a decent life.   After all, they do the real work in this society.   Let's give them a fair wage even if it puts people out of work.   While we're at it, let's give them all free health insurance.   That way we can have two pressures on jobs.   We'll increase the taxes on all those rich people who make more than $50,000 so everyone can have health insurance.   But we'll make the evil corporations pay most of that so they can really cut down employment.

Then the Dem.s will unravel the No Child Left Behind Act and change the history books to remove the fact it was written by their party.   Kennedy will deny any wrongdoing as Kennedys always do.

What else can we expect from a Democrat controlled Congress?   Only God and John Kerry know for sure but after a couple years of that, what we won't see is a Democrat in the White House.   And we won't see future control of the Congress in liberal hands.   I suppose that's a fair trade.

The Associated Press runs an article that a group of "activists" is suing various States to stop the use of electronic voting machines.

The argument is the same old, tired old, "computers are prone to hackers".

I suppose one only needs to look at Mexico's history with voting to understand that the old manual system of paper voting produces far more cries of voter fraud and "hacking" of the ballot boxes. Anything automated would improve upon paper-based voting.

Actually, any kind of voting is prone to hacking. If there is a will, there is a way. At least with computer ballots, the results are faster, and it's cheaper.

And that's what I suspect is going on with Voter Action, the organization trying to stop electronic voting. Electronic voting makes the recount less of a tool.

Take the Governor's race in Washington State in 2004. Republican Dino Rossi originally won that race by a narrow margin. Democrat Christine Gregoire bought a second recount, a computerized one, but failed. So, she bought a third recount, this time a manual count, and finally got a result in her favor.

In reality, Gregoire was able to use the time spent doing a manual recount to find votes that she could disqualify. She succeeded in finding 1,678 illegally cast votes, and lucky for her, many of those votes were cast to her opponent. The extra time she bought with the manual recount helped her party win another gubernatorial election.

This is why Voter Action wants to ban electronic voting. They want to keep the manual recount as a tool towards thwarting, delaying, and obfuscating the results of an election.

I actually feel offended that the Associated Press would characterize Voter Action as a group of "activists". They give activism a bad name. Their agenda is better served in Mexico.

You know, if "The Duke" was still alive today, I think that's exactly what he'd say.

The Associated Press reports on a mother of triplets who gave birth to quads recently.   The triplets were the result of fertility treatments.   The quads were not.   This would be a really nice story but for a couple facts.   Apparently Angela Magdaleno, the mother, spoke Spanish in her interviews - she's not conversant in English.   Presumably she wasn't born here.   Call me what you will but my first thought is, I wonder if she is here legally or illegally.   Secondly, the family (now numbering 11) lives in a one-room apartment.   Triplets and quads require extended hospital stays with expensive medical treatments.   How can they afford that when they live in some cheap, tiny apartment.   The answer is they cannot.   Taxpayers pay for it.   The quads were natural so I suppose I can't object but the triplets were the result of science.   So do you wonder why Californians get upset about the costs borne by taxpayers for the medical care of immigrants?   I thought people who didn't have insurance couldn't get medical care in this country?   Why do we need socialized medicine, again?

George Musser, of Scientific American says he has "to call 'em as I see 'em."   I guess he sees himself as a global warming umpire.   But as any baseball fan can tell you, the umpire is not always right.   Sometimes umpires make bad calls which are obvious to even the most green baseball audience.

Musser puts forth the case for anthropogenic greenhouse warming as coldly and rationally as he possibly can.   He does a good job of explaining possible contributors to climate change and defining the terms thrown about by media climate reports such as "forcings."   He builds the case for identifying the "fingerprint" of "greenhouse gases" causing observed global warming.   But there are holes in his overall argument that even a layman can see from the top of the stadium.

Let's start reviewing Musser by noting that his specialty is space, not climatology.   He is Sci-Am's Mars bureau chief.   Space science is his primary focus.   His bio points out, however, that although space science is his primary focus, he is often drawn to a far more challenging subject, human society.   Put another way, he is so enamored of his intellect that he is pretty sure he is qualified to tell us his opinions on whatever subject strikes his fancy.   He is, in his opinion, qualified to tell us all how to live.

Based on his writings, Musser leans towards atheism because those who believe in God and the human soul are not without sin, they have historically mistreated fellow human beings about as often as those who do not believe in a God.   He takes time out to beat up on what he frequently refers to as "neoconservative columnists" and plain old "neocons" not to mention any initiative proposed by President George Bush.   He frequently points out how Europe is beating America on numerous business and scientific fronts.   He is fond of bashing corporations, especially the American pharmaceutical companies which have given us so much over the past 100 years.   Let's just say that while his bona fides as a rational, objective journalist are somewhat in question, his liberal tendencies are not.   His work bears the fingerprints of rampant liberal extremism.

But let's proceed to some of the specific arguments Musser puts forth in his Scientific American blog.   He targets specific comments made by those arguing against anthropogenic warming but he never addresses the most common argument which is the science is far too underdeveloped to draw any real conclusions.   Global warming detractors point out anomalies in the modeling which forms the basis of the IPCC's, mainstream media's and many government's conclusion that there is scientific consensus regarding the causes of global warming.   This is a reverse didactic.   When dealing with theories, it is not up to the detractor to delineate every objection.   The theorists are responsible for that.   Their job is to find the holes in their theories and plug 'em up.   The detractors, by the very nature of the scientific method, are given free reign to find fault and criticize.   A theory does not become fact because four or five possible infirmities are refuted.   A theory becomes fact after all possible problems have been addressed and even then, we still keep testing it.

Musser states the amount of forcings can be calculated by "filling in some very rough numbers, the current forcing is 2 watts per square meter, mostly from carbon dioxide, methane, and low-altitude ozone, minus the cooling wrought by particulates."   He doesn't much get into the science of particulates and with good reason.   That science is even less well understood than the science of atmospheric carbon.   We could simply perform the subtraction if we had the figures for particulate cooling, but we really don't.

Musser concludes "According to the geologic record, 1 W/sq m should lead to about half a degree Celsius of warming -- which matches the observed increase."   But much in the geologic record has been debunked as bad science.   The study of tree rings, for example, has so many shortcomings that its usefulness in climate science has about been thrown out.   Perhaps, these problems will be fixed in future modeling but for now, serious climatologists do not rely on any of the data back beyond 400 years.

Even Musser's use of the half degree Celsius is curious.   It is based upon "average annual temperatures at the beginning of the century and today."   "The century" means 1900.   But why is that a meaningful point in time?   Why not go back to 1850, 1800, or 1750?   The answer is because if we do that, we don't have a .5 degree Celsius increase.   We have significantly less and the whole global warming argument becomes far less reasonable.   If we expect to see a one half degree increase but we only see .2 and the possible reasons for that increase can be natural variability, well, you see where I'm going.

Musser does point out in his diatribe that "carbon dioxide spreads out evenly."   One of the facts which causes many problems in scientific circles is the undisputed fact that the northern and southern hemispheres are not warming at nearly the same rate.   Actually one is warming while the other is cooling which is, well, another problem.   Many of the supposedly observed phenomenon caused by global warming, melting of glaciers, is happening in the half of the world where temperatures are decreasing on average.   Many of the scenes in Al Gore's drama unfold where the average annual temperature is dropping.   That's sort of as big a problem for Musser as it is for Gore.   Why exactly is ice cover decreasing if temperatures in a region are pretty darn cold and decreasing?   Precipitation has also decreased.   But nobody is claiming that this phenomenon is anything but natural variability.

Musser has appointed himself one of the leading anthropogenic global warming umpires in the big leagues.   But that doesn't mean we can't question his calls.   Maybe he's a bad umpire since he seems to have made up his mind before the first pitch was thrown.   He has called it as he sees it but he decided the pitch was a strike before it was released.

What do the nation's first responders think about the war on terror the US is waging abroad?   Are they upset that our nation's soldiers are over in Iraq and Afghanistan with no firm date for their return to the US in sight?   Do they see the war on terror as one in which the ultimate goal should be to relegate terrorism to approximately the same category as prostitution and other such criminal "nuisances?"   Well, I don't think we can find a precise survey which will tell us the answer but here's a proxy: Jim Kouri, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, points out that at least the police like the fact the war is being waged overseas.   This is especially true of New York City police who know their city will always be in the terrorists' crosshairs.   Just as Mayor Bloomberg is fond of pointing out that terrorists are more likely to have maps of NYC in their possession than they are to have tourist pamphlets about the Grand Canyon, NYC police know when they read reports of civilian deaths in Iraq, those reports could just as easily be reports of New Yorkers.   As we go to the polls this year we ought to at least consider the reasons the police generally support Bush and many more conservative Republicans despite the fact they are traditionally Democrat voters.

On Sunday, the NY Times reported a steep increase in tax receipts is shrinking the budget deficit.   There were some uneducated comments about how some of this is illusory since "tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections."   Funny, but I didn't notice the run up in stock prices which has yielded the huge capital gains the Times is crediting with the surge in tax revenues.   One time tax revenues do also result from smaller entrepreneurs surprised by huge earnings.   So maybe that's to blame.   Those don't bounce up and down like cap gains do.

The Times had a couple days to chew on the revenue news and the result is an editorial appearing today which seeks to poke fun at the current state of the economy and the budget deficit.   They call the revised budget figures a "mission accomplished."   How pithy of them!   The fellows at the Times editorial desk are such smartees.   How do they come up with such clever things to say.   I wish I could have all their addresses so I could invite them to my next cocktail party!   They're so entertaining.

But again, the smart guys and gals at the NY Times have shown that they just do not have a grasp of economics.   They speak of the Clinton years (also known as the Internet Bubble) which were filled with one time revenues due to cap gains earned via a specualtion bubble as if it were the real go-go times of our economy.   But the Bush years obviously are deficit spending years tempered by one-timne tax receipts.   Who is doing the accounting for costs associated with our new homeland security expenditures or the disaster relief efforts in the hurricane ravaged regions of our country?   How do those factor into the budget deficit?   And where precisely are the causes of one-time tax revenues?   The stock market has been flat since it bounced a bit upwards following that mild correction when we woke up and noticed the Internet Bubble.

You can spin this but people just aren't that stupid.   This editorial shows just how stupid the snotty boys and girls at the Times are.   They fell asleep during economics class.   They fell asleep during the Clinton years.   On second thought, I think I'll avoid inviting them to my next cocktail party.   These fat, dumb and happy frat boys and girls would probably drink all my expensive booze!

Planet Ark (does this name have fundamentalist religious connotations?) reported on the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission's adoption of the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals outlined by the Kyoto Protocol.   They noted that the commission "has become the latest US region to buck the Bush administration by agreeing to greenhouse gas emissions goals outlined by an international pact on global warming."   They say "President George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly left rapidly developing countries without emissions limits in its first round."

The NJ Meadowlands Commission, created by law passed in 1969, is a multi-jurisdictional oversight body whose job is to oversee environmental protection, economic development, and solid waste management of a swampy area between several communities.   The total area under its authority is 30 square miles (that's 3 by 10 or 5 by 6, if you prefer), half of which is wasteland.   The land under the Commission's purview would only be economically valuable if it were first landfilled which much of it has been.

The Meadowlands is a key part of the natural ecosystem which ultimately flows into Newark Bay.   It was used and abused for a long time before the Commission was formed.   This abuse hit its height with the building of the Meadowlands Sports Complex which are the home of the NFL Giants and Jets, and for the time being, the NBA Nets and NHL Devils who are slated to move soon.   In the wake of the creation of the sports complex, numerous shopping malls and other business property sprouted up.   The area also has been used for largescale solid waste disposal.   It has been subjected to voluminous sewage and hazardous waste dumped there legally and illegally.   During and after World War II, the military dumped refuse there and rubble from London was also dumped in the Meadowlands.

The New Jersey Turnpike is built right through the middle of the swamps.   If you are traveling out of Manhattan into New Jersey via route 95 and down the Turnpike, you will notice that shortly after you get away from the Hudson River, you enter an area in which there are vast undeveloped swamplands with dots of significant urban development all around.   That is the area referred to as the "Meadowlands" or "Hackensack Meadowlands."   That is the area under the Commission's authority.   It is not a "US region" as the Planet Ark report calls it.   It's a swamp whose adoption of the Kyoto Protocol is meaningless.

It is a mystery to me what a swamp can do to adhere to Kyoto.   One of the major functions of any swamp is to turn biological waste into methane.   Swamps spew methane at an incredible rate.   The only way to prevent that is to drain all the water and put concrete over it!   And regardless of the slight bending of reality of calling the Meadowlands a "region," one is also left wondering how a swamp adopts the Kyoto Protocol.   Kyoto does not drill down to every "region" of the world and dictate certain carbon emission levels for every 5 by 6 mile area.   So what exactly will the Commission do to adhere to the international treaty?   Carbon emissions in the Meadowlands generally have not been monitored.   There can be no benchmark of future emissions to attain.   This is all so much hot air you'd have to wonder if it isn't creating further global warming.

All this stuff is not what bothers me most about the Planet Ark report.   What does irritate me beyond words is the statement, "President George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first term."   Let's keep our eyes on real history which actually happened and not re-invent it.   Al Gore had a lot to do with the Kyoto Protocol's development during his second term as Vice President.   He brought the treaty back with him and presented it to his boss, President William Jefferson Clinton.   Clinton decided not to present the treaty to Congress because the Senate voted 99 - 1 to not even consider any such treaty.   Nothing much changed on the political landscape after Bush took office so the treaty was never submitted to the Senate as all treaties must.

Mr. Bush does believe the treaty would hurt the economy and unfairly left rapidly developing countries without emissions limits in its first round.   He did, in fact, say this.   But regardless of his personal beliefs, he could not unilaterally adopt it.   All treaties have to pass before the Senate.   Similarly, it isn't Bush's job to withdraw from treaties which have never been adopted.   Planet Ark is both giving the President too much authority and laying unwarranted blame at his feet.

tha push fer simplur spellin pursists teecher think if dey mayd spellin simplur da kids wood figur owt stuff an do gooder at school i agreee fullee Y shood we wury bout spellin wen nuffin goood comes out a it any ways in fact we all shoont wooree bout noncents cus nobodee reelly cayr wot peeple say if dey unnerstand em

ya no spellin is only de smallist part a it we shunt wast time on grammer or puntuashun neeeder kids cood do better if dey just worryd bout the tuff stuff and focis on what reelly mattas my kid learnt where da states was an she got 1 rong cause she spelt it juhsey cus her parens say da word dat whay Y was dat rong i dunno cus dats da way we says it new yawk cum on dats da way da nativs sas it wot a bout nawleans da peepls sayin it right aint dey????

puntuation is a wast of time 2 ders no reeson forit if it gets in away of teachin kids riyt stuff lyk math get ridait dats wat i alweys sas

to two too is rediculus they their thems is jus as bad

i allwas say teech the kids well an parents hell will cwikly go by

mayk it easee caus we need to teech da kids

The AP is running an article discussing the "Slavery reparations" movement which is "gaining momentum."   A few institutions and some state governments are examining their own culpability for harm caused under American institutionalized slavery.   A woman by the name of Katrina Browne, a white Episcopalian, who descends from what is called the "biggest slave-trading family in U.S. history" has made a film documentary about her ancestors which was screened at the denomination's national assembly.   She says, "A lot of white people think they know everything there is to know about slavery — we all agree it was wrong and that's enough.   But this was the foundation of our country, not some Southern anomaly.   We all inherit responsibility."

Do we all really inherit responsibility?   Is this inheritance a financial responsibility?   Does "we" mean all white people, does "we" mean all people with no African lineage?   How is my financial contribution to this responsibility calculated?   How do we figure the payout to individuals of mixed race who maybe had a single slave-ancestor?

Do we create a taxing scheme to collect money to pay any such reparations?   Does that taxing scheme provide an exemption for the 12 million Asians, 3 million Muslims, couple million with native heritage, or 42 million hispanics?   What about those whose entire line might have been with some religious or other group which worked against slavery?   Don't we need to compile an entire genealogy for every taxpayer and then determine, based on some objective criteria, what each person's level of inherited responsibility might be?   After all, in this day and age, one individual's ancestors might include a slave owner, an Amish farmer, a slave or two, an American Indian, a slew of Quakers, several hispanics from various Central American or European countries, maybe a couple underground railroad families, and who knows what else.   It isn't as if people of this country do not mix.

The problem with Browne's comments are that not all whites in this country today participated in slavery.   None of my ancestors did.   My English Episcopalian and Irish Catholic ancestors who emigrated here in the early 1800s owned no slaves.   My German ancestors who came here far earlier (1600s) but lived mostly among the Mennonites in an unrelated anabaptist religious community most certainly did not own slaves nor advocate for the system.   My later ancestors (late 1800s) who came from slavic countries to work manual jobs in and around the coal mining industry certainly owned no slaves.   What exactly is my inherited financial obligation?   My children have blood relatives and ancestors who descend from slaves, came here recently from Korea, who are and were Quakers, some of whom were active in the underground railroad, etc., etc.   What about the millions of lilly white folk who have similar lineage?   What is their obligation?

To whom is this obligation owed?   Is it the upper middle class black family from my old neighborhood whose children attended some of the nation's best colleges largely on scholarships while I worked full time, lived in the ghetto to save money in order to pay full freight and attend a smaller, less well respected, local college?   I'm not sure this family did descend from slaves.

Is it my old multi-millionaire landlord who most definitely did have dozens and dozens of slave ancestors?   What about that guy over there named Hernandez who has a fifteenth cousin ten times removed who escaped from slavery to Mexico?   Does he pay reparations because his fourth great grandfather was a poor white guy from Texas who left for Mexico and married into a local family?

We, in the United States, are a melting pot which is so intermixed that it has become impossible to even discuss slavery reparations.   There are a few of us who may be related to the "biggest slave-trading family in U.S. history" while also being related to slaves and those whites who worked against the institution.   No amount of money in current dollars can change hundreds year old history.   And taxing people to try to repay "victims" is a monumental waste of time and effort which flies in the face of reason.

Well, the results are in and they sort of run counter to all the Democrat hype about the "tax cuts for the rich."   Perhaps I should hesitate to publish this since my source is right-wing pundit media stalwart, the New York Times, but here goes anyways.   The deficit is shrinking.   It is down to $ 318 billion.   And that's during a time when the cost of military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing more than $150 billion, not to mention extremely expensive homeland security measures, not to mention a few hundred billion working its way to New Orleans!   The deficit shrunk on "an unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy."   Well, well, well, you just can't trust those corporations and wealthy people.   We cut their taxes so what did they go out and do?   They made even more money which caused them to have to pay more taxes than ever.   What's wrong with those people.   They just won't accept a tax break when we try to give them one!

I suppose the politically correct thing to do when you lose an election is congratulate your opponent, and call for national unity.

However, it appears that being a "good sport" now involves protest, complaints, and accusations of voter fraud.

Manuel Lopez Obrador, who lost the Presidential election in Mexico, seems to have taken a page from Al Gore's book. Instead of rallying his supporters to unite with the country's new leader, he instead is asking them to defy him...

The show of defiance suggested just how difficult it will be for apparent victor Felipe Calderon to unify Mexicans, many of whom believe the nation has yet to overcome decades of institutional corruption and fraud.

But the truth is that if Calderon had lost, you know there would also be calls for civil unrest.

This naked hatred for the victorious candidate is happening with all elections, inside and outside the USA. I believe it started when Al Gore refused to accept his defeat, and refused to unify with his country.

But the truth is that this is probably something that has gone on for centuries. Perhaps for a brief moment during America's democracy, people once acted with civility.

Whooppee!!!!   New Jersey lawmakers have reached a deal!   And the crux of that deal is an increase in taxes.   Whooppee!!!!   We have to pay increased taxes but that's OK.   The government is back in business.   Isn't that just special?   It is only a 1% increase in the sales tax.   of course that represents a 17% increase in the regressive taxing structure the weight of which typically burdens the "middle class" (read industrious people who went to college and work long hours to get ahead) more than any other.   But that's OK.   The "middle class" doesn't elect Democrats so that's how the decision to balance the budgetary largesse upon the shoulders of the "middle class" came about.   Just to keep the "middle class" happy, the Democrats said they're going to earmark much of the money collected by the increased sales tax for property tax relief.   Fat chance you'll see any of that.   The calculus for "middle class" property tax relief has yet to worked out but you can bet your bottom dollar that if you are a two earner family combining your $60K and $70K salaries to claim a household income of $130K, you simply won't qualify.   That's because "middle class" in Democrat parlance means families with incomes of $50K-80K.   And likely the "property tax relief" will benefit renters at least as much as owners even though the owners are the ones doing the overtime hours while the renters are out partying.   This is what you get when you have an entrenched Democrat machine the way New Jersey does.

Michael Moore has been busy.   He's making a movie "about the misery people are put through on a daily basis by our profit-based system."   Obviously, based on this comment alone, one can easily see what it is Moore is after, a profit based system.   The truth is patients are put through misery regardless of whether the system is for-profit or not.   This movie will tell one side of the story - the anti-profit one (or, if you prefer, the communist or socialist side).   So finally Moore has come out and admitted he is a communist.   That's refreshing.   It is tiring to see these far-left liberals who pretend they are representative of mainstream America.

Moore says "Sicko" "is a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth."   It's nice he can make a comedy out of that.   You just cannot make a comedy out of the millions of people who "have health care" in the countries with fully developed socialized medicine plans like Ireland and Canada but who die while waiting on a list for a doctor to see them.   I don't know particularly many people from countries with socialized medicine (maybe a dozen or so) but I know none who have no story to tell about a relative dying while waiting for treatment that is routinely handed out in this country to even those without health insurance.   There's nothing funny about that.

I sincerely hope this country adopts limited socialized medicine.   It would be limited in terms of number of people qualifying for mandatory coverage.   Only the extremely wealthy like Moore would fall into the covered group unless they could prove they were against socialized medicine for at least 10 years.   Those few could opt out.   The rest like Moore who currently get their physician to make a house call when they get jock itch would have to live with mandatory socialized medicine and all the "quality care" it provides.   Then we'd be able to end this discussion for good.

I'm getting old.   I can remember my seventh grade hippy social studies teacher claiming that we would run out of oil by 2000.   Or was it 1985 or 1990?   I really don't remember exactly but that's what old age does to you.   I do remember we should have been out of oil by now.   But I see that not only are we not running out of oil, the current prices are making Canada wealthy because they have encouraged the country to mine the copious amounts of oil shale it has.   Shouldn't we be jealous of those darn Canadians?   They have more oil than all the Arab states combined!   Well, maybe we should be jealous and maybe we shouldn't.   It turns out the US has a copious supply of oil shale too.   And, finally, Congress is moving to begin the mining of it.   So how big is this mountain of oil shale?   One news report says 500 billion to a trillion barrels.   Other reports I have seen suggest that the amount is more than 2 trillion barrels.   Some reports suggest far more than that, ultimately claiming the oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah is the largest energy reserve in the entire world.

So, are we running out of oil?   No, we aren't.   That must really make my social studies teacher angry.   Nobody likes to be wrong.   That's true whether a person is a lowly teacher or a prominent environmentalist.   And since my teacher took her cues from the environmentalists, there's no question environmentalists are pissed about every new discovery of oil reserves.

So, let's have it.   Where is the evidence of secret prisons located in European states?   The Dana Priest pulitzer prize winning article is either an example of great reporting or complete fabrication.   Thus far there is absolutely no evidence to support the allegations made by anonymous sources.   So what of it?   The Washington Post has printed loads of stories about investigations into the alleged secret prisons but nothing in hard evidence has been discovered to date.   One is left wondering how good the sources for the original story were if they did not know where these prisons were located.   One wonders how it is possible for prisons to completely avoid detection after all this time.   One wonders if the Washington Post simply manufactures the news in order to fit its point of view.

Burning fossil fuel is just plain EVIL!   If we can't get you to stop burning oil, coal, methane, etc. out of fear the whole world will collapse, then we'll have to try a different approach.   That seems to be the mantra of environmentalists.   So now the "science" to support this mantra is slowly developing.   A new report says carbon absorbed by the oceans is causing seawater pH to drop which is said to be a threat to coral and other ocean life.   But there are some clues in the report which should cause at least a modicum of suspicion.

The report says "oceans worldwide absorbed approximately 118 billion metric tons of carbon between 1800 and 1994."   118 billion is a big number, very big.   It looms in front of us like some asteroid speeding toward the planet promising the extinction of our species.   You can't get your arms around billion.   You can't deny it.   But here's another big number, the volume of the Earth's oceans is 1.3 - 1.4 billion cubic kilometers.   Do you want another big number to turn your head, according to at least one web site, if all the gold suspended in the world's seawater were mined, each person on Earth could have about 9 pounds.   There's about 6 billion people on Earth.   That's a lot of gold.

I can do the carbon math and my results say about 100 tons of carbon has been absorbed by every cubic kilometer of ocean water.   That sounds like a lot even to me but that's over 200 years.   So adding time to the equation, that's about a half ton for every cubic km.   A cubic Km is a lot of water.   Anyone with a swimming pool can tell you that if you want to get the pH just right, that's not a lot of chemical!   But, more importantly, this report doesn't seem to account for the tremendous underwater or above water volcanic activity which undoubtedly accounts for huge amounts of carbon dissolved into seawater.   The amount of human spewed carbon is infinitesimal when compared to that spewed by volcanoes during the same period.   Numbers sometimes startle us, but where the ocean is concerned, the word billion should not cause any particular amazement.

Another clue that something might be wrong in this doomsday report is the use of certain timescales.   "This is leading to the most dramatic changes in marine chemistry in at least the past 650,000 years," says one scientist.   Has the ocean's pH been studied over the past 650,000 years?   According to Junk Science, "the Early Permian (about 270 million years ago) was the last geological time both Earth's temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were as low as today's."   Somehow, while I claim no special scientific knowledge in regards to this, I still have my doubts.

Another part of this report raised red flags for me.   It describes the research which forms the foundation of this report as "experimental studies, such as those conducted by one of the report's authors, Chris Langdon at the University of Miami, show that coral calcification consistently decreases as the oceans become more acidic.   This means that these organisms will grow more slowly, or their skeletons will become less dense."   And just in case you stupid people don't get it, that is the rough equivalent to "osteoporosis in humans."   Sea life is suffering from osteoporosis and it is our fault!   In order to get humans really worked up, everything has to be put in common denominator, human terms.   Whenever you see that, you must realize that the intended audience for the report is your typical, run of the mill, human being.   And if a scientific report is intended for your average person, the intent is to get us all worked up over the issue.   Such reports are often scooped up by the ever-vigilant media in order to create doomsday stories about how, yet again, we are choking the environment.   You don;t have to be a scientist to read and understand that coral is suffering from osteoporosis.   And you don't have to be a scientist or even do any real work to report this back to the public.

Finally, the report calls for "future research" which when translated means large-scale government funding for a comprehensive study.   The game of science in the modern world consists of identifying a real or potential problem; predicting dire global consequences; then convincing legislators and the public that more research is needed if the planet is to survive.   Most of us won't go any further than to read what the potential consequences are before running for the hills screaming for scientists to save us.   We'll write our legislators assuming we are the only ones smart enough to see a real sky-falling event before it's too late.   We won't do any homework on the issue and scientists know that.   They need their funding and they are good at getting it.

Perhaps the burning of fossil fuels is killing the planet.   I can't say one way or the other.   But I am always cautious about anything which blames humans for the demise of "space ship Earth."   This report may actually be on to something.   Maybe this is a bigger threat to life than global warming.   But when a scientific report tells me something which just doesn't seem right, uses words like osteoporosis just to make sure I get it, refers to timescales of around a million years (long before humans were here - long before any reasonable studies were possible, and then calls for more money flowing to scientists to keep their research alive, I just can't help but be suspicious.

Where was this one?   Buried on page 597?   Will any news agencies cover this?   Reuters published a story telling us that Rush Limbaugh is innocent of anything surrounding the report that was all over the front pages concerning a Viagra prescription.   But you had to dig to find it.   And the story just couldn't contain mere facts.   It had to include a comment describing Limbaugh as "an abrasive and often moralistic talk show host."   The man is neither abrasive nor moralistic if you view things from the right side of the political spectrum.   If you're a conservative, you see him as an intelligent often rather funny, amazingly successful talk show host.   But Reuters did not choose those words to describe Limbaugh.   They called him abrasive and moralistic.   They could not have told us more had they said, "© Reuters, the liberal Democrat media outlet, 2006, All Rights Reserved."

Would Jon Corzine kill a man and then cry at his funeral?   Yes, he most certainly would.   That may be a harsh analogy but it isn't far from what the Democrat has done thus far as Governor of the State of New Jersey.   New Jersey has a Democrat as Governor and Democrat controlled State Senate and Assembly.   Most of state government is controlled by elected Democrats and the Democrat patrons who obtain their lucrative jobs, including often multiple pension dips, from a state that has become as corrupt as any in history.   The Democrats run the show.   Well, they did run the show until they shut the show down.   Oh, they earn their salaries.   They continue to accrue their pensions.   Rest assured of that.   But they don't have to do anything because the whole bleepin' mess has been shut down by the Democrat machine.

In one of the most economically booming time, New Jersey cannot balance it's budget!   The last time that happened, they blamed the Republicans who were briefly in charge of one of the branches of government.   This time there is nobody on the other side of the aisle to blame.

And what do the Democrats want to do to balance the budget?   Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.   The Democrats want to raise taxes.   They don't want to take away any of those patronage jobs which act like a huge anchor to make certain that they will always keep their grip on the state.   No, they can't cut costs.   The answer is to raise taxes on the people of the most taxed state in the union.

The question is never really about whether to raise taxes in New Jersey.   It's always about HOW to raise taxes.   One Governor went about it with an "in your face, I'm not about subterfuge" bluntness which cost him his job.   New Jersey voters may not be particularly nuanced, as they continue to vote Democrats into power regardless of performance, but they don't take kindly to slaps in the face.   They'd much rather be hit by spitballs fired from hidden locations.   But this governor is trying to bring back the Florio, "in your face," method.   What is it they say?   Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome is ....

Is it stupid or insane which finishes that sentence?

This all would be extremely an interesting discussion if it didn't have serious and significant consequences.   But in New Jersey, things aren't always that easy.   Normally, a governmental shut down would result merely in a bunch of do-nothing employees getting a few days off, after which everything would go back to normal.   But super-intelligent, nuanced Governor Corzine, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to shut down one of the state's largest money making machines.   He has closed the casinos.   So after the dust settles on this mis-conceived baby, the state will actually be in worse shape than it started in.   The state will collect even less revenue than would normally be expected.   And deeper service cuts or larger tax increases will be needed to close the gap.   Corzine closed the casinos because he claims he doesn't have the funding to keep them open.   Yet keeping them open would result in a net revenue increase.   Keeping the casinos open does NOT COST MONEY.

The long term revenue ramifications of the casino shut down are clear to anyone with half a brain.   Every person who scheduled a vacation in Atlantic City this July Fourth week will be burned.   They will likely never schedule another trip to A.C.   That is especially true in the world as currently constructed with the booming casinos in Connecticut and other places.   Once these vacationers get a glimpse of the nicer digs at places outside New Jersey, they'll never come here again.   So thanks Jon.   Nice going ace.   Smooth move, genius!

The truth is you can always count on Democrats to make this sort of idiotic move whenever times get tough.   If you have a problem and everyone's first thought is to dig a hole to figure out what the problem is, there are three potential scenarios.   The first occurs when Republicans and Democrats split power.   When that happens, the hole will be dug, the problem not found, and then the Democrats and Republicans will stand around blaming each other.   If Republicans are in sole control, they will dig the hole, complain that they never thought the hole should be dug in the first place, then fill it back in and put away the tools.   If the Democrats hold power, they dig the hole, blame the Republicans for "making" them dig it, then walk away with a hole left in the ground for decades, leaving the tools out in the rain to rust and become useless.   All three scenarios are bad but the first increases our annoyance with government, the second is a waste but at least no long-term harm is done, and the last results in a bigger problem than we started with.

New Jersey is merely a microcosm.   Go ahead and vote Democrat in the upcoming national elections, if you dare.   But please don't complain when you are left with a huge hole in the ground, no solution to the problem, and rusty tools.   Don't complain when stupid solutions like closing down net revenue earners are shut down to "save money."   And don't complain when Democrats try to solve new problems with old, discredited means.

This illegal alien was caught at the U.S. Border disguised as a car seat.


Funny. In the USA, commuters have been known to sit a dummy on the passenger seat to sneak through the car pool lanes. In Mexico, they put a dummy inside the seat to sneak through the border!

I finally figured out the problem with World Cup Soccer. It's not Americanized.

That's why we need the Bench Warmer Girls!

Bench Warmer is the name of a trading card company who recently released their collection of 400 sexy models holding soccer balls and celebrating the World Cup. What's more American than trading cards and sexy chicks? This is what soccer needs.

It needs more Americanization, more sex, more glitz, more commercialism! We need our big corporate sponsors taking over, we need Al Michaels, we need a soccer team owned by Disney.

You think the world hates the USA right now? Wait until we modify the world's most beloved sport into something more palatable for American television!

So go ahead New York Times, go ahead Associated Press, go ahead all you "one world, one society" freaks, and cram the World Cup down our throats. Wal-Mart would love to suck billions of dollars out of third-world countries selling crass commercialized soccer junk.