We now have a solution to America's "energy crisis."   The answer my friends is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind.

According to the AP, Iowa will build a "Mammoth $200M wind farm" soon.   The project will cost $200 million, take up just 40,000 acres, and generate about 200 - 300 megawatts.   It was described as a "win-win for the county" in which it is proposed.   After all, that's a lot of financial investment and the power is "renewable" even if the facilities used to generate it are not.

The total US electrical energy generation capacity is somewhere around 1 million megawatts.   If we were to build enough plants to meet all our needs, that would mean about 4,000 similar projects to the one being considered in Iowa.   This translates to a cost of just $800 billion and would cover only 160 million acres.   That's only 8 times the size of ANWR!   That's only 7% of total US land although not all is suitable for building wind power generation plants.   And, of course, that's just electricity and doesn't include heating oil and gas or transportation fuels.

It is a fact that while the formal military operations were under way in the second Gulf War, about 200 coalition forces were killed.   It is also a fact that during the first Gulf War, less than that number died in battle-related incidents.   It is also a fact that the army against which the coalition forces fought during each Gulf War was battle experienced from 8 years of a stalemated military conflict with Iran which resulted in well over a million dead.   The first Gulf War cost the coalition $50 - 75 billion.   The precise cost of the second conflict is a little more difficult to pin down but suffice it to say the cost of military hardware, munitions, etc. was far less than the amounts which have been poured into the country since formal conflict ceased.   Similarly, while all casualties pretty much ended after the coalition won a stunning victory in the first Gulf War, the number of casualties escalated after the cessation of formal military conflict in the second.   The only conclusion one can reach is US forces are safest while they are fighting a war.

Obviously Iran's army may have improved since the days they fought a World War I styled human wave strategy against their neighbors, but the fact remains they were never able to win many victories against Iraq.   And right now, they are a very inexperienced fighting force while our troops are battle hardened.   It stands to reason that if we want to pursue a strategy which results in the fewest casualties with the least financial cost, what we ought to be considering is a full scale invasion of Iran followed by a complete withdrawal.   We ought to throw everything we have into defeating the Iranian army militarily and then just withdraw leaving devastation, destruction and death.   The we'll see how well the Iranian regime does at enriching uranium while the public demands they rebuild infrastructure.   It's a win-win-win scenario.   If the Iranian theocracy stands up after we crush them and begins enriching uranium again, we just go in and do it again.   And as long as we can keep the casualty and financial costs down, we can employ this strategy indefinitely.

Today's the day.   All the best diplomacy in the world boils down to this.   Today's the day Iran is supposed to stop enriching unranium.   Fat chance of that happening!   The Security Council puffed up and pounded its chest then threatened ... gasp ... sanctions.   Once Iran stopped laughing, they said, "um, no" and now the next move is the Security Council's.   Check!

Here's a thought, my vote is now available for purchase.   Democrats, Republicans and all manner of independents can have it for the taking.   All a party needs to do is tell me something short of military action that will work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the genocidal Iranian conservative Muslim theocracy.   I'm not looking for theory or opinion.   I want something that WILL work.   No, I don't want to hear about how things will probably still be OK after Iran gets the bomb.   I want to hear plans of action to prevent this from happening.

And if it all boils down to a military conflict, anyone who doesn't have a reasonable alternative today will not be entitled to criticize any future actions or complain that they would have done almost everything differently.   Nobody supporting military action by their lack of an alternative strategy will be allowed to change their minds once we are completely committed and fully engaged.   Anyone who says, "I voted for it but now I am against it," will be summarily executed for treason where they stand.   Nobody will be allowed to stand up and deny funding in Congress.   No Communist groups will be permitted to find a grieving mom of a combat casualty and protest against those who had to make the hard choices.   is that too anti-freedom of speech for you?   Well, here's your opportunity to exercise your free speech - BEFORE THE CONFLICT BEGINS!

Now that it seems a Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 and a shot at winning the presidency in 2008 are inevitable, I suppose we should expect troops in Iraq to be "redeployed" within the next several months to two years.   I'll just give in on the point for arguments sake.   The question really is not so much if the troops will be redeployed but where they will be redeployed to.

Murtha et al. seem to think they ought to be sent to Okinawa, Kuwait or other places in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.   This line of thinking is appropriate.   If, for example, the troops were redeployed to American cities such as Camden, NJ, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta or Washington, D.C., we would not accomplish the stated objective of protecting our military men and women.   The casualty rate for these forces would likely go up if we made the mistake of bringing our troops back to the US.

100,000 or more young men and women walking the unsafe streets of these violent American cities would be an accident waiting to happen.   While IEDs haven't made their way back to the US YET, there are myriad other weapons in common usage.   So I say, whatever we do, don't bring our young men and women "home."   It's too dangerous here and that's before the terrorists realize that America is once again open for business.   Once they conclude the only safe place to kill Americans is America itself, they'll certainly come here to join in on the fun.   And then we'll really be able to deal with terrorism in the manner John Kerry and friends want - as a criminal nuisance like drugs, prostitution, assault and homicide.

So as you go to the polls in November, please remember, it isn't nearly enough to vote for the politician who wants the troops out of Iraq.   You must find the candidates who want them redeployed to non-US destinations.

Yesterday's news that one in eight(1 in 8) Americans live in POVERTY was disconcerting to say the least.   Today the New York Times opines, If you’re still harboring the notion that the economy is "good," prepare to be disabused.   Noted intellectual Charlie Rangel quipped, "I know what they say about putting lipstick on a pig, but I don't see how the Bush administration can spin these numbers in their favor."   Most news coverage regarding the report said something along the lines of "the last decline in poverty was in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency, when it fell to 11.3 percent.   That ought to put the nail in the Republican coffin!   But is it meaningful or true?

What does POVERTY mean to you?   The word conjures up images of dirty children drinking dirtier water and crying themselves to bed at night because they haven't had a decent meal.   From my perspective POVERTY means the situation in which a person doesn't have: adequate housing to protect them from the elements, sufficient clothing to stay warm in the winter, or enough food to stave off hunger pains.   I figure an impoverished person generally has almost no material possessions.   Wikipedia says POVERTY "is an economic condition of lacking both money and basic necessities needed to successfully live such as food, water, education, and shelter."   I think these definitions are all fairly consistent, though I don't understand the meaning of "successfully live."

I suspect people in different parts of the world define POVERTY differently.   I do think the people I once drove past near Caracas Venezuela who precariously lived inside cardboard boxes along the side of a mountain, without electricity or a decent water source would define their living condition as POVERTY.   But so would the people with decent apartments, cable television, automobiles, and once a week McDonalds for dinner, living in Camden, New Jersey.   Many of the illegal aliens in this country live in POVERTY by most standards but they might not describe it as such since it is double, triple, or more the standard of living they escaped in their native country when they came here.

In any event, the government does not engage in such subjective definitions.   Instead they use an objective measure: annual income of $10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a family of four.   That's not a lot of money but it does confuse the situation some.   You can't live in Manhattan on $10,000 but there are many places you can.   Illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, might view $10,000 less as the line between POVERTY and middle class and more as the line between middle class and the elite rich.   In Mexico, the average income is less than half the US POVERTY line!

The report which brings us the US POVERTY rate results from the American Community Survey, conducted the US Census Bureau, covering 100,000 households.   In other words, it is the result of self-reported figures.   Of course, the Census Bureau is not the IRS so everybody reports truthfully, don't they?   And what about the sampling techniques used by the USCB?   One report I saw noted "demographers warned that because of the small sample size in counties and cities, some figures may not be credible."

Perhaps more interestingly, the survey reported upon is a new creature.   It was first tested in the nineties and implemented in 2000/2001.   There are undoubtedly kinks to be worked out such as the sampling methodology mentioned above.   The results of the survey should be viewed in that light.   And the basis for the comment "the last decline in poverty was in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency" is a comparison between full census data and data found as a result of a newly developed survey with perhaps flawed sampling methods.

The current trend is directly traceable to the beginning of this new survey.   In 2002, the Southeast Missourian noted "after nearly a decade of decline, the U.S. poverty rate stood at 11.7 percent last year, up from 11.3 percent the previous year, which was the lowest level since 1974.   More than 32.9 million people lived in poverty last year, 1.3 million more than in 2000."   What event caused more than one million people to become impoverished in a single year?   And why did the trend continue?

Sure September 11 caused the economy to hiccup.   But there was a recession which preceeded the attacks.   And since then, things have been pretty good.   In March of 2002, CNN reported "The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent in February and businesses added jobs for the first time since last summer."   A chart on this page shows the unemployment rate rose steadily in 2001, particularly sharply after September 11, and then dropped after the beginning of 2002.   Since that time, it dropped steadily until this year when the AP reported, "in July, the unemployment rate rose to a five-month high of 4.8 percent as employers added just 113,000 new jobs."   The number of employed persons, based on the most recent data, stands at about 143 million as compared to 136 million in 2000.   That's a 7 million increase in the number of jobs during the period of rampant growth in poverty!   And the unemployment rate today continues to be better than it has been in the past 3 decades.   Additionally, real After-Tax Income Has Risen By 13.5 Percent Since January 2001.

There just doesn't seem to be a reasonable causal explanation for the American Community Survey's findings.   You can discuss what POVERTY means to you and conclude perhaps the line is placed in the wrong place.   You can criticize the survey as containing improper sampling and statistical methodlogies.   You can complain that with all the new jobs under Bush, it just couldn't be his fault.   But there still is the educated comment from Charlie Rangel about putting lipstick on a pig.   I suspect there is something out there which better explains the increase in poverty under Bush.

Looking at the findings, there were about 31.5 million people living in poverty in 2000 and near 37 million in 2005.   That is an increase of 5.5 million during Bush's two terms.   During the same time period "experts" in the media including CNN, the NY Times, and other MSM estimate that as many as 10 - 20 million illegal immigrants entered the country.   So, in conclusion, one can conclude only one thing.   That is, of the 20 million illegal immigrants to this country under Bush, 14.5 million have successfully climbed the American ladder out of POVERTY!

Want to live the longest, healthiest possible life?   Of course you do.   The best advice you could possibly receive is to keep your weight down, right?   Everybody knows that one.   Eat as little aspossible, walk for exercise every free moment, and generally maintain a stick-figure-like existence and you may live long enough to still be around when scientists figure out how to beat death!   I don't think I need to point you in the direction of news articles which support this apparent "fact."   But maybe I ought to send you to some articles questioning all those news headlines and supposed scientific studies which led to the conclusion.   Here's at least a start: "This 'fact' suffered a seemingly fatal blow last year when Katherine Flegal of the Centers for Disease Control published the first careful analysis of what the data on obesity really showed."

The Associated Press says that average SAT scores across the nation have dropped by a significant amount compared to last year, the lowest in 31 years. In all fairness, this year's SAT test is the longest yet.

But by comparison, average scores for the rival ACT test rose. So, can you really say that American students are getting dumber? Or are they getting smarter?

Who knows!

I question that our public schools are providing relevant education to kids. I didn't take the SAT test, but I did take the ACT. From what I can remember of it, much of it dealt with stuff I don't even use today. Perhaps America's young adults might be adept at algebra, Shakespeare, and Chemistry, but what's that going to towards managing their credit, competing for jobs, or starting their own business?

Perhaps basic education, the "Three R's" ought to be continued from Elementary School through Middle School. But by High School, students ought to be migrated into classes that fit their career goals. Let them take high-level mathematics if they think they want to go into Engineering or Computer Science, but don't require it if they want to focus on Journalism, or Law.

Moreover, High Schools should provide a certain number of "life skills" classes, such as Personal Finances and Business.

Most high school students already have an idea of where they want to be once they graduate high school, and it isn't always necessarily in college. It's not a "bad idea" to forego college. Rather, what's necessary is that each student know what their path is, and high school is a great place to iron that out.

I run my own website publishing business, and do quite well for myself and my wife. I certainly didn't go to college to learn this skill, and didn't learn about it in high school either. Rather, I relied upon the skills that were taught to me by my parents, and applied them to this business. That's more important than Trigonometry and Classic Literature as far as I'm concerned.

That's what high school should focus on.

The Associated Press reports today that President Bush gave a speech at a high school gymnasium in New Orleans, reminding all the Katrina evacuees that it's time to come home...

"I know you love New Orleans, and New Orleans needs you," Bush said. "She needs people coming home. She needs people — she needs those saints to come marching back, is what she needs!"

It's hard for me not to liken this request as a host telling their visitors that their welcome has run out. Houston, TX, which hosts the most evacuees, has been putting up with Katrina people for a long time.

In fact, The Christian Science Monitor today, reports that the toll of hosting the evacuees is really starting to be felt...

It's Houston, however, that has received the lion's share of Katrina evacuees: 150,000 are still there. And while Texas has warmly welcomed this group, the stress over increased unemployment and crime is starting to be felt.

If I was a Katrina evacuee, I certainly wouldn't want to go back to New Orleans. WHO, in their right mind would want to? The place is dependent on a series of levees that neither the city nor the state wants to take responsibility for. If not for those levees, the city would normally be underwater. Moreover, many people have voiced their opinions, including yours truly, that the city should have never existed, and is probably better to let lay waste.

My guess is that the good folks of Texas, who have indeed been quite hospitable in accepting these evacuees for so long, have been putting pressure on President Bush to extend the boot gently, and ask these people go away.

So where is Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans, in calling for his "chocolate city" to come home? I imagine he's hoping they won't. I think it's obvious the evacuees who are causing the most burden in Houston, are the poor and unemployed, and why would Mayor Nagin want them back?

When the next round of hurricane evacuees comes up, I imagine Houston, TX will think twice before offering their hand in assistance.

I have some advice for ex-FEMA head Michael Brown.   Shut up already!   Enough has come to light about Brownee's conduct before during and after Katrina to give us a good enough picture of what happened.   The image of an inept, full-of-himself, doofus-o-crat, running around sending high-schoolish Blackberry messages to his girl friends in the home office while fussing over his make-up before the next jerky press conference is etched in our brains.   At this juncture, Brownee can only reasonably hope for one thing and that is, if he stays out of the light long enough, we may actually forget about him and his great grandchildren need never know that they are related to a guy whose government service, or lack thereof, was the cause of much consternation.   Perhaps the Great grand kids won't even know that anyone in their family ever worked in government.   They'll read about the debacle of federal aid to Katrina victims but never realize they are related to the guy who screwed it up.   That's the absolute best Brownee can hope for.   But as a hopelessly inept human being, Brownee just refuses to get out of the way.   Now he figures if he just says he was too incompetent to realize how incompetent his bosses were, maybe everyone would think better of him.   Gone are the days when people occupying high level executive jobs take the position that the buck stops here.   Brown figures, unless you are God, you really aren't responsible for anything.   There's always somebody else to blame.

All you Bush lied folks, have got to read the Plame Out story on Slate this morning.   It begins:

"I had a feeling that I might slightly regret the title ("Case Closed") of my July 25 column on the Niger uranium story.   I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999.   And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention. But there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy.   Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame."

Missing in the argument over global warming are Russian scientists who are more concerned about global cooling.   No, this isn't the same sort of global cooling the consensus global warming scientists are concerned with.   The Russians scoff at the notion the world's glaciers will melt, flow into the sea, and stop the oceans' currents.   They are far more concerned with global cooling caused by the sun's cyclical nature.   And no, this isn't a non-mainstream view held by one obscure global warming skeptical scientist at some no name university in Siberia.   This view is the one currently driving Russian research in climatology.   Those Russians were never particularly bright when it came to science, were they?

Dan Rather's biographer has taken shots at everyone from Walter Cronkite, who he calls a "blowhard" and claims still believes that the anchor chair should have been retired with him in 1981, to Katie Couric.   I'll leave you to read the rest of this interesting article.

Over the period Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been President of Iran, the man can't seem to get out of the way of his apparent stupidity.   It would be easy to think the man an uneducated peasant based on his bungled understanding of history and almost complete inability to engage in anything even remotely resembling diplomacy.   Yet, there is something rather cagey about his approach to international relations.   There is something there we all ought to fear.

Ahmadinejad has at times claimed the Holocaust never happened and was a fiction created by Europeans for ulterior reasons.   He has backed away from the did-not-happen comment but noted that while it did happen, it happened in Europe and was something the Europeans ought to have cleaned up themselves - Israel should be located in Europe.   He claims Israel started "tens of wars" over the past 60 years.   he doesn't seem to recognize that Arabs started the pattern of belligerence on the date of Israel's birth as a nation.   He completely ignores the fact that Jews occupied the land before any Arabs or other Muslims, that "Palestine" was an invention of the UN and European powers, that were it not for the UN, Palestine might very well be some European country's colony to this day.   But that's all besides the point.   Where Ahmadinejad's words are really interesting is in regards to his country's "civilian" nuclear plans.

Ahmadinejad has consistently claimed Iran has the right to engage in a civilian nuclear power program.   Yet, the very treaty under which nuclear technology is available at all, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran and almost 200 other countries were signatories, holds a diametrically opposed opinion.   While the treaty does permit the enrichment of uranium, a necessary part of conducting a civilian power program, it permits this practice only under a rigid regime of NPT inspection.   No state has yet developed nuclear weapons while a signatory of the NPT and subject to the inspection regime.   Iran refuses such inspection.   If they decided right now to reverse course and accept it, they have built up so much angst particularly on the part of European powers that they would be able to build the system with at virtually no cost.   Clearly that cannot be Ahmadinejad's aim unless he is completely stupid.

Ahmadinejad has gone so far as to challenge Us President George Bush to a televised debate on world issues.   Obviously, such a debate would do nothing in regards to the current UN demands that his country stop enrichment.   This challenge comes off as the words of an ignorant peasant to most people in the rest of the world.   But for all of Ahmadinejad's apparent stupidity, there is one part of the world which does not see his deeds and words for the uneducated opinions they present.   That part of the world is the largely undereducated Muslim population of the Middle East and beyond.   They see Ahmadinejad's words as meaningful and probably correct.   They don't have an educational basis with which to debate Ahmadinejad precisely because their learning is so restricted as to present only one side of any issue when it comes to history and international affairs.   So much so is this the case that it begins to resemble the indoctrination millions received under Soviet domination.   Simply put, Ahmadinejad is pandering to the base, the base of the majority of Muslims.

Obviously Ahmadinejad is very much a politician.   His perspective on things ought to be politically directed to his base of support.   But there's something much more sinister in all this.   The man is also pandering to a good portion of less educated westerners who often seek "peace at all costs."   He has created significant doubt in the many Europeans and Americans who do not look more deeply into issues than the surface of what they want to hear - like Iran only wants civilian nuclear power.   The rest of the world's leaders, the ones calling for a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment, must fight their battles on two fronts.   George Bush must not only convince Iran to stop, he must also convince the voting public that Iran has more than civilian power ambitions.   That's probably not as difficult as the effort required by European leaders to similarly convince their voters.   And all the while, Iran continues virtually unabated in its efforts to develop the bomb.

There's nothing Earth shattering in my brief analysis except the fact that Ahmadinejad knows exactly what he is doing.   He will accomplish his goal.   Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, if they haven't already.   So, what will be the next trick of this seemingly stupid peasant once he accomplishes the goal his neighbor, Saddam, was unable to accomplish?   When we can answer that question, and we should try to do it now, we'll know for sure what we have to do today.   The funny thing about time is nobody has figured out how to make it stop.   Unless we figure that one out soon, maybe Ahmadinejad will set his sights on it as his next feat of strength.

Not all freedom of worship is equal.

It is very good news that the two Fox News journalists, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were released by their captors.   In conjunction with their release, a video was released showing the two converting to Islam.   Centanni said, "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," the implication presumably being that he had not really converted at all.   That may allow Steve to sleep easier at night but it's really not that simple.

Islam doesn't much care what might have caused one to convert to Islam.   It might be a heartfelt embracing of the Qu'ran and all it stands for.   It might be a lollipop, or a glass of water as one walks in from the desert.   It might be a knife at one's throat, a gun at one's private parts, months of torture, or anything else you can possibly imagine.   All are pretty much equal in the eyes of Islam.   And once you convert, that's pretty much it.   Your life of religious longing and search for the truth is over - there's no going back.   Convert to Islam with a gun to your head and in the eyes of Islam, you are a Muslim, period.

Islam does recognize that some people might decide to renounce it.   It just doesn't make renunciation a simple matter.   Before one can renounce Islam, one must be subjected to caning and rehabilitation.   Most Muslim countries actively require you to repent during a 3 day period and if you don't (if you maintain your desire to renounce Islam), you receive a death sentence for the crime of apostasy.

Even in secular Muslim countries like Malaysia, ruled by a non-religious constitution which guarantees freedom of religious worship, it is near impossible to renounce Islam.   If one renounces Islam, you need to produce a certificate from the Islamic Shariah court.   Shariah court is unlikely to provide a certificate since the Qu'ran and Shariah law require death for any Muslim who helps another renounce the religion.   Secular Malaysian courts have actually ruled a person "exists under the tenets of Islam until" death.

So, while Centanni and Wiig might feel their conversion was invalid because it was coerced, Islam doesn't see it that way and should either of these two gentlemen happen to venture into an Islamic country, whether secular or subject to Shariah, they might very well be arrested, tried and perhaps executed for apostasy.   Not exactly complete freedom in my book.

You just gotta love the French.   They really know how to keep the peace.   They sit back and criticize everyone else while they stay out of harms way.   Here is a clip of their forces arriving to help out in the effort to rebuild Iraq: http://www.break.com/index/frenchtroops.html   Don't worry, they'll get things figured out soon enough, they're French!

In other news, 50 French soldiers arrived in Lebanon to prepare the way for another group possibly numbering as high as 200 eventually to be deployed to keep the peace.   Kofi Annan, obviously encouraged by the French deployment, expressed optimism that the UN will be able to raise 15,000 troops for the effort.   Although, French President Jacques Chirac said he thought 15,000 was too many.

Too many?   For what?   You can't build a decent crowd for a soccer match with 15,000 unarmed men wearing blue helmets.

Don't get into a panic attack just yet.   Despite the gleefully reported decline in the housing market, the economy is not quite dead yet.

I found the manner in which the housing sector's downturn was reported somewhat entertaining.   The MSM was very excited.   Finally there's a chink in the US economy's armor.   Why were they happy?   Do they want to see Americans hurt?   Probably not, at least in the purest sense.   They're just happy to see any economic decline before the coming elections.   The only thing standing between liberals and election victory is the fact that Americans usually vote their pocketbooks.   The hope for these folks is the downturn in housing will cause a general recession in time for the Congressional elections.   That doesn't appear likely.

Then there were the "I told you so" reporters who claimed to have accurately warned about the bursting of the housing market "bubble."   You know these people.   They're the ones who beginning about 5 years ago were saying the US housing market is going to fall.   They repeated their mantra every quarter, warning that we were all in for a fall next quarter or next year.   Well, if you start saying right now that housing will rebound and continue saying that until it does, you have qualified for the same exclusive club these people belong to.   These are the same people who claim gold will be making a big move upwards.   Of course it will.   It always does.   And if you never waver from declaring that the upward move will be soon, eventually you'll be right.

I've decided to claim the economy will go into recession.   Of course, I can;t say when.   But it will turn downwards.   I am willing to bet the farm on it.   I can say unequivocally that Castro will die, everyone does eventually.   Oh, and by the way, the Cubs will win the World Series.   No not this year but sometime.   So will the Tigers.   So will the Devil Rays.   They'll all win the World Series sometime in the next 4 thousand years.

All joking aside, the economy still remains strong.   The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) points out that despite the "New-Home Sales Decline by 4.3%", durable goods orders are pretty strong.   The economy as a whole is showing solid growth for this year.   Durable goods are the fuel which makes the rest of the economy go.   Homes can tank but if durable goods orders remain solid, people keep their jobs or get new, better ones.   In many respects the "housing bubble" we have seen comes from decades of good durable goods orders.   You can't buy a house if you don't have money and a job.   Maybe home prices rose at unsustainable rates over the past five years but don't forget that for many years since the late 80s, home prices were stagnant.   In many respects the past ten years have made up for that.   And whenever there is a pricing correction, things usually go too far.

The bottom line here is there is cause for economic optimism.   The economy remains strong.   Of course that won't last.   There will be a recession but nobody can really say when that will be.   Housing prices will flatten out but nobody can say for sure whether they will actually drop.   On a country-wide basis, they never have before except as a direct result of over speculation and the passive activity loss limitation tax legislation.   House prices should remain at or near there current levels because of structural reasons.   We still do not have enough housing for everyone who wants a house in this country.   Right now there is more supply than demand but that won't last.   Long-term, the country needs more housing.   It isn't yet time to press the panic button even if you mortgaged your new home to the hilt.

I am more amused each day when I hear the assertions of the multi-culturalists who claim we must embrace all of the cultures across the world, not merely tolerate those which flourish within the borders of our multi-cultural nation.   They are, after all, at least equal in stature to our own, perhaps greater.   We must strive not to impose the institutions of our culture on other countries of the world.   For example, we must not attempt to "impose Democracy" on the rest of the world because they have never known such a thing.   They are naturally resistant to our institutions.   It is nothing short of cultural arrogance to assume Democracy can work in these places where kings, dictators and other totalitarian regimes have ruled for centuries.   They aren't ready for it and they may never be.   That's certainly not an indication of "evil" on their part.   Their equally valid culture just does not permit the practice of such a form of government.   It is folly and cultural arrogance to attempt to breed a form of government born amidst predominantly white, anglo-saxon, protestant colonist farmers.   Yet somewhere off in the distance I hear a voice calling out to me and warning against this brand of philosophy.   Those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.

A long time ago, there arose a tribe.   The people of the tribe followed a distinct, unified culture.   This culture developed its own religion, language, history, art and customs which grew and endured for centuries.   The fruits of this culture became known far and wide as its people spread throughout the world.   The members of the tribe, though they spread far and wide, maintained a sense of unity against peoples of other cultures.   The customs of this culture were practiced by its members regardless of where they might find themselves.   They practiced their religion, spoke their language, adored the fruits of their labors and art, and generally believed themselves superior to others.   They claimed a homeland where centuries of their number dying enriched the soil for farming and producing ever greater fruits.   They believed blood, sweat, and tears from members of their tribe reaching the ground made it more fruitful.

One of the central tenets of this culture was a belief that leaders from within the tribe would rise up and head their nations.   They believed these leaders would naturally represent the will of the people.   All policy which was brought forth by these natural leaders would necessarily flow from and be consistent with the culture because, at its core, the culture was a single organic body and leaders were no more or less than the brains of that body.   Few ever thought to question such policy because they knew in their hearts and minds that their leaders were themselves.   Questioning the policy of their leaders was roughly akin to the hand refusing the brain's command to move.   They naturally distrusted Democracy as a form of government produced by inferior people.

In a certain sense the culture was isolated from others because it had for centuries successfully fought off invading hordes and those who would militarily impose imperial rule.   The people distrusted foreigners and their cultural institutions.   They distrusted even those foreigners who lived amongst them, believing them genetically inferior and a potentially corrupting force.   They discouraged inter-marriage and tried to hold down these foreigners by limiting the places they could live and the occupations they could take.   They were tolerant of foreigners in the sense that they permitted them to live on their land but always kept an eye on them lest they imperil the existence of the culture.

Whenever times were tough, the members of the tribe looked at all foreigners as potential cause.   When natural calamity struck and the land did not produce, the predominant thinking was the soil had been defiled by the blood and sweat of outsiders.   Tribe members feared that outsiders would deliberately try to destroy their culture because it had stood strong for so long and because attempts at invasion and domination were an integral part of the culture's history.   This often manifested itself in horrible acts of violence and brutality which the tribe defended on moral grounds by claiming its objective was survival of the culture.

The countries of this tribe sometimes became belligerent with their neighbors due to the general state of mistrust in which they lived.   There had been many attempts to impose outside cultures on these people.   The Roman Empire was one such attempt.   There were several European powers which similarly tried to militarily defeat the culture and impose their institutions upon it, including certain forms of Christianity.   All were somewhat successfully turned away.   But the countries of this culture began to deeply distrust neighboring cultures.   The countries combined their efforts to create a protective ring around the culture.

Eventually this tribe went on the offensive in order to protect itself from neighbors.   They viewed the institutions and people of their neighbors as inferior anyway so invasion and domination were a natural outgrowth of the people's will to protect themselves from a similar fate.   They succeeded in dominating numerous foreign cultures and thereby formed a protective shield around them.   Members of these cultures continued to fight against this tribe and eventually defeated it militarily and imposed new cultural institutions including Democracy.   The victors broke apart the countries which the tribe had combined.   They did this to weaken the culture and prevent future events like the large-scale conflict they had just endured.

Democracy did not "take" in this culture and it retained its sense of cultural identity.   Eventually a natural leader from within again rose up and led his people in a defense of the culture.   They again combined nations sharing their culture and attacked neighbors.   A large-scale conflict ensued.   Outsiders eventually prevailed and beat back the tribe and its culture, this time in a more meaningful way.   Such is the history of one large and once successful culture which the remainder of the world came to know it could no longer tolerate.

The tribe and culture were Germanic.   The final organic leader was Der Fuehrer, Adolph Hitler.   The large-scale conflicts were World Wars I and II.   While much of the Germanic culture endures to this day, much of it has been subdued in order to avoid these sorts of conflicts.

Today there is another culture which feels threatened.   That culture has its own religion, language, history, art and customs which have grown and endured for centuries.   The fruits of this culture have become known far and wide as its people spread throughout the world.   The members of the culture have maintained a sense of unity against peoples of other cultures.   The customs of this culture are practiced regardless of where its members might find themselves.   They practice their religion, speak their language, adore the fruits of their labors and art, and generally believe themselves superior to all others.   They claim a homeland where centuries of their number have died and been buried protecting the homeland from invasion by the Roman Empire and European powers.

One of the central tenets of this culture is a belief that leaders from within the culture will rise up and head their nations.   They believe these leaders will naturally represent the will of the people.   They naturally distrust Democracy as a form of government produced by inferior people.   In a certain sense the culture is isolated from others.   They distrust foreigners including those who live among them, believing them genetically inferior and a potentially corrupting influence.   They hold down these foreigners by limiting the places they can live and the occupations they can take.

Tribe members fear that outsiders will deliberately try to destroy their culture because it has stood strong for so long and because attempts at invasion and domination are an integral part of the culture's history.   The countries of this tribe sometimes become belligerent with their neighbors due to the general state of mistrust in which they live.   The countries often combine their efforts to create a protective ring around the culture, often morally defending horrible acts of violence as acts of cultural defense.

Eventually this tribe will go on the offensive in order to protect itself from neighbors.   They view the institutions and people of their neighbors as inferior anyway so invasion and domination are a natural outgrowth of the people's will to protect themselves.   Democracy has not "taken" in this culture.   Today natural leaders from within the culture are rising up and proclaiming the inherent superiority of the culture.   They are openly belligerent to neighbors.   The culture's goals are to obtain weapons at least equal to those of all outsiders.   From that point forward, the culture will take whatever acts it needs to in order to protect its institutions and people.

A peacenik cannot tolerate a homicidal maniac with a weapon pointed at their head and finger pulling the trigger.   A culture of tolerance cannot survive tolerance of an intolerant culture.   Multi-culturalist may see the good in every other culture but members of all cultures do not see the good in multi-culturalism.   We are a society in which everyone who wants a vote can have one even if that vote is cast for taking away the right to vote.   We are a society which tolerates all cultures no matter how far distant from the predominant one.   We defend the rights of those who would take them away from us.   Some day, some way, one side will prevail.   I have my doubts about whether the peacenik will survive.

Sometimes the path to peace is full of violence.   Sometimes the order loving person must disarm the madman and place him into custody in order to restore the peace.   It is difficult to distinguish between those who are a clear and present danger to us.   Sometimes we must use history as our guide.   No matter how you frame the growth of Islamic Facism, it sure does look a whole lot like Nazi Germany.

While this blog wasn't meant to be a consumer advocate, this is some pretty damning undercover reporting.

Check out the video.

Next time your car needs a regularly scheduled service, it might be wise to do the job yourself.

The Washington Post reports The Bush administration has reportedly begun reclassifying information about the numbers of US strategic weapons.   According to the Post, a senior analyst said, "It would be difficult to find more dramatic examples of unjustifiable secrecy than these decisions to classify the numbers of US strategic weapons."   One piece of information is news, the other an editorial by someone employed by the government yet in no position to make policy decisions.

The Post said "The report comes at a time when the Bush administration's penchant for government secrecy has troubled researchers and bred controversy over agency efforts to withhold even seemingly innocuous information."   There is nothing innocuous about the number of US strategic weapons in the current environment in which China has undertaken an unprecedented military buildup, Iran has fairly clearly expressed its desires to obtain nuclear weapons and use them to eradicate an entire nation, and numerous other countries have assisted others to defy UN prohibitions against weapons technology sharing.

The inclusion of this "innocuous" sentence in the Post's article demonstrates a complete political bias against Republicans in general and Bush in particular.   It attempts to make the administration look silly.   yet if anyone looks silly in the article, it is the Washington Post who cannot differentiate between "innocuous" and military necessity.

Yes, we shared some of this information with the Soviets themselves by in what context?   We shared this information only in the context of negotiated weapons reductions.   Neither China nor Iran, our new current and future nuclear powered foes, is willing to negotiate anything with respect to military armaments.   For that reason, it makes perfect sense to reclassify these things.

Do they not give a basic intelligence examination to people who join the staff of the Post.   Quite obviously some sort of quality control to ensure a basic level of employee intelligence is needed there.

Remember Cindy Sheehan?   Think hard now.   She's the gal who lost her son during his volunteer military service and just wanted to meet with President Bush to discuss him and the Iraq War.   All she wanted was peace in our time, right?   She didn't have a political agenda.   She wasn't a Communist or a liberal or anything like that.   She was just a grieving mom who deserved our compassion and merely wanted American boys and girls protected.

Guess again!   The Crawford Peace House - so named because it is located in Crawford in order to harrass our President while he took time away from D.C. and because all it was interested in was peace - is organizing a rally this Friday at noon at the Texas Capitol.   The thrust of this protest has to do with air quality, specifically in Texas.   The group apparently doesn't like carbon dioxide and is concerned about other air quality issues as well.   If you're going to the rally, don't forget a swim suit as the group will be cooling off at Barton Springs afterwards!

On Saturday they'll be holding an organizing meeting for everyone concerned about the many air quality issues in Texas.   Please RSVP karen@seedcoalition.org if you plan to attend one or more of these events.   If you need more information about this latest Iraq War protest, check out the web site at stopthecoalplant.org!

There's nothing quite like a communist-environmentalist-liberal-Democrat in all-I-want-is-peace clothing!

All we are saying ...
  is give all our ideas on how the world should be run a chance

This Kira O'Reilly is one weird chick. But I suppose she's making money.

She sits on display at an art house, completely naked, with a dead pig laying on top of her. It's all supposed to be art.

The folks at People for the Efficient Termination of Animals (PETA) are complaining. Are we surprised?

According to the Associated Press...

"As Miss O'Reilly seems to have to depend on the shock value of using a murdered pig as a prop, perhaps lacking the talent to make it as a proper artist, may we suggest she take up a day job instead to pay the bills?" PETA said Friday in a statement. "Cruelty is not entertainment."

Well, I could argue the part about cruelty not being entertainment. One man's cruelty, is another man's bliss. However, it's wrong to suggest that O'Reilly killed the pig for her art. Her website says she obtains the pigs, already dead, from a scientific research lab, that used the pig for its organs.

These pigs weren't killed for art, they were killed to help Mankind, most likely to serve as organ tissue replacements for people in need. She's just using the carcass for some grotesque shock value. I hope Ingrid Newkirk doesn't ever have to have an organ replacement, she just might end up with some pork.

But then again, what would PETA be without dead animals? Just like Jesse Jackson needs racism to keep his Rainbow Coalition full of money, so does PETA need stuff like this to keep the donations flowing. That's why they're the quickest with damnation-finger.

But more about this Kira O'Reilly chick. Laying naked with a dead animal reminds me of Ed Gein, the guy who killed women, cut them up, and dressed himself in their skins. This is about as close as it legally gets to Ed Gein.

Hey! I'm taking bets that Kira is neither Jewish nor Muslim!

It turns out that the replacement of all those evil CFCs has resulted in global warming.   It turns out the Montreal Protocol, which curbed the use of CFCs, reulted in 2 to 3 times as much "greenhouse gas" emissions than the Kyoto Protocol hopes to eliminate!   The moral of the story, boys and girls, is, if you don't know the outcome of what you are doing, don't do it.   You just might make a moderately bad situation into a really bad one.

After the most recent Islamo-Fascist attack plan was halted, Democrats came out in force to complain that the Bush Administration had placed us in even greater danger via their "misguided" "imperialistic" policies.   No mention was made of the fact that NSA "eavesdropping" had as much to do with foiling the plot as anything else, let alone give it credit for being the key piece of intelligence which protected us from a fate worse than 9-11.   Reid, Soros and others criticized the administration and claimed Iraq had put us in harms way while wasting money which could have been used to firm up homeland defense.   At about the same time, Democrats hailed the decision by a single Democrat-appointee federal judge that the NSA's program was unconstitutional as evidence the Bush Administration was engaged in establishing a dictatorship in the midst of our Democracy.

Democrats brush off the fact that nobody has successfully attacked this country in the 5 years since 9-11 by claiming that Islamo-fascist terrorism is a long term problem which grows due to long-term American policies and while we have not been attacked recently, we surely will be.   Yet those same liberals were the ones who said 8 months of being in office was plenty of time for Bush to have prevented the 9-11 attacks.   They ignore the 8 years of the Clinton presidency which preceded 9-11, claiming Bush had plenty of time to defend us but he chose to ignore the threat.

You just cannot have it both ways.   Either Clinton was entirely to blame for 9-11 or Bush gets all the credit for 5 years without an attack.   If Bush gets all the credit for preventing an attack, you have to look at the policies his administration used to protect us since 9-11.   Those policies get the credit, pure and simple.   You cannot handcuff the administration by taking away those tools, wait for the next attack - perhaps under a Democrat administration - and then turn around to blame the prior administration as ineptly setting the stage for the next attack.

The Democrats are engaged in a political policy which will cause the nation's certain failure.   This is a political policy meant only to obtain power while causing us to be weaker.   This is political policy which will get the credit for another massacre of Americans more than any al Qaeda training camp along the Afghan-Pakistan border would.   This is a political policy which will surely cost thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of American lives in one fateful moment some time in the future.   If we are sufficiently weakened by liberal efforts at handcuffing the administration, we will be hit again for sure and perhaps be hit harder than anyone can imagine.

It doesn't take much imagination to see what a particularly hard hit would look like.   Large scale chemical, biological or nuclear attack would hit this country in a way from which it might never recover.   The terrorists know that.   That is precisely what they want to do.   If we are hit particularly hard at some point in the future due to this handcuffing of our nation's homeland defense, our entire system of government could collapse.   That would certainly lead to a dictatorship and complete loss of the freedoms we currently enjoy.   That would certainly change the face of our government in exactly the opposite direction from the one the Democrats say they are striving for.

Look what passes for analysis of the hurricane-climate connection debate at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900354_pf.html

Note that this is NOT listed as an editorial.   In other words the staff at the Post thinks this is a representation of unbiased news coverage!   However, close inspection of the choices made yet again demonstrate that the author(s) are simply trying to support an editorial opinion while using the costume of news coverage.

They chose a handful of "global warming skeptics" and attempted to prove they are in the minority, might have professional biases leading to their faulty conclusions. ("Hurricane forecasters tend to be more focused on predicting the intensity and paths of individual storms, and often focus on factors such as wind shear and water temperature that can cause a storm to shift within a matter of days or hours, so they tend to emphasize natural variability over long-term climate shifts.")

One scientists was sited as being an oil company hack - "whose group receives funding from the fossil-fuel industry."   That's part of the standard liberal formula these days, isn't it?

The Post also decided not to include comments by the numerous scientists, like Pelke and Gray, who they couldn't impeach based on their status as "hurricane forecasters or in the pocket of big oil."   None of the many Canadian and American academics long considered to be reigning experts in climate science, not merely weather forecasters, were cited because their opinions are not so easily dispensed with.

Picking and choosing the arguments you decide to refute while ignoring myriad others is something usually reserved for criminal defense lawyers' closing arguments.   News is supposed to present all available evidence.   The result of the Post's Sunday climate change diatribe is a dangerously skewed op/ed piece masquerading as "NEWS."   When "Journalism" becomes mere opinion with incomplete representation of facts, regardless of the quality and quantity of "experts" cited, the term generally used to describe it is Yellow Journalism.   This piece in particular should only be used for training puppies.

Proof is a strange beast.   One man's proof is another's lie.   Whole disciplines have been formulated as a means of analyzing just what constitutes proof in a given pursuit.   Our legal system, for example, has very strict rules about what can be shown as evidence in a criminal trial.   Some things are inadmissible because their authenticity is questionable.   The chain of possession over evidence is almost always questioned.   Whole types of potential evidence are inadmissible because they are too easily tainted.   We spend a good deal of time making sure proof is proof when it comes to criminal proceedings.   Similarly, medical testing on new drugs has a high standard of proof.   Science in general typically has very high standards of proof.   However, many other professions apparently have no standards at all.   These standardless professions may eventually corrupt the rest.   Perhaps they already have.

Many have been critical of the intelligence in the leadup to the Iraq War.   An avalanche of people have claimed the administration "faked" intelligence in order to convince the people of the United States that invading Iraq was right.   The thinking goes, George Bush knew he was going to invade Iraq long before he made a case for it.   He "cherry-picked" some valid intelligence and had the CIA fake other information in order to support the decision.   Of course it was indisputable that Saddam had possessed and used chemical weapons.   Nobody questioned that he aspired to possessing and probably using nuclear weapons.   He was unquestionably a brutal dictator who engaged in genocide of the Kurds, among others.   Nobody denied that he paid money to the families of suicide bombers who blew up Israeli civilians.   He also dreamed of becoming the (military) leader of the Muslim world and eventually the whole world dominated by Muslims.   He wanted to build the next great empire.   But, Mr. President, where is the proof?   Where are the weapons of mass destruction?   The President was held to an extremely high, possibly impossible, standard of proof.

In jobs like leader of a country, sometimes one must act on trends and apparent situations without absolute proof.   That is the nature of being an executive.   Hitler said he wasn't interested in anything more than protecting those of Germanic blood when he invaded the Sudetenland.   He said he would cease aggression on numerous occasions and then defied the very treaties and agreements he entered into.   There was no perfect proof he was resolved in an effort to dominate the world and kill all the Jews and miscellaneous Untermenschen and make the German people dominant.   We didn't have his full plans ("Mein Kampf" wasn't complete) for world domination in hand so how could we assume that was his design?   We didn't have perfect proof, yet we could see the trend line and it left little doubt what he was doing.   We had to act before we had the proof in order to stop him.   Such are the decisions of executives.   It isn't rocket (or environmental) science.   Sometimes that extremely high level of proof is impractical.

Similarly, we like to note that Muslims are not all after an intolerant world dominated by Islam.   Many "moderate Muslims" believe in peaceful coexistence, or so we are told almost constantly by the media.   And that may very well be true.   But the growing pile of evidence suggests a good percentage of Muslims are indeed interested in spreading their religion and Sharia and other Muslim concepts throughout the globe.   Their predominant religious book tells us that is precisely what all Muslims should be after.   There isn't a word of multiculturalism in the Qu'ran.   There are instructions stating unequivocally that deception in the name of spreading Islam is right and good.   A fair body of evidence also suggests that Muslims uniformly do wish "Death To Israel" and are in favor of the actions undertaken by "extremists."   Be that as it may, some suggest we don't have nearly enough proof to take action based on this assumption.   There is a very high standard of proof with respect to fighting the war on Islamic extremism.

Turn the page to other less universal concerns.   In the last Presidential election, Dan Rather, Mapes and many others tried to discredit the sitting President by "proving" he was derelict in his duties as a National Guardsman.   There wasn't good evidence available to prove this theory until "the documents" arose.   Rather, Mapes and others were certain they were onto something so they continued their pursuit.   And when the documents appeared, they all had a good "Ah-Ha moment."   Then the questions started and ultimately the documents were proven to be poor fabrications.   Rather and Mapes should have been discouraged by their inability to find a smoking gun.   But they proceeded undeterred because they believed the substance of what they claimed to be true even absent any specific evidence.   They held themselves to an extremely low standard of proof.

In the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, it is indisputable that one country permitted an armed group to exist amongst its civilian population.   In fact, many civilians permitted the group to exist in its midst.   The group violated the territory of a sovereign nation and kidnapped its soldiers.   That group engaged in openly hostile acts against a sovereign nation with the tolerance, if not overt cooperation, of another sovereign nation.   There is absolute proof.   But we ignore the proof and engage in rationalization which criticizes the attacked nation because their response was deemed "disproportionate" to the aggression.   Yet, despite proof of collateral damage, the overwhelming fact is they went into the neighboring country exclusively to disarm the armed group.   had the group been based in Iraq and Iran been the country attacked, nobody would have lifted an eyebrow when Iran defended itself by violating Iraq's territorial sovereignty.   And proportionality wouldn't have been raised.   Israel was deemed wrong by the world community.   No level of proof would have changed that.

Moving along to a different sort of issue, California is far along in the process of designing a system to combat anthropogenic global warming.   The "proof" supporting their actions is to be found in the several IPCC releases supporting the notion that the globe is warming sue to carbon dioxide and other human emissions.   The IPCC relies in large measure upon the work of Mann et al. concerning the "hockey stick" graph produced by statistical means which concludes the last few decades of the 1900s were the warmest in thousands of years.   But this "hockey stick" graph has been discredited.   The proxy data has been discredited.   The statistical methodology has been discredited.   The work has been called bordering on fraudulent, perhaps not bordering.   The only valid conclusions which have been supported by the analysis of Mann's work conclude that the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age!   I should hope so!!

Still, the media and numerous policy makers including California's Governator continue to use Mann's work and the IPCC's releases to support taking action on global warming.   There is an extremely low standard of proof being applied here.   Many have argued on this forum and elsewhere that we simply must take expensive action because the future of our planet is at risk.   Al Gore arbitrarily chose "the next ten years" as the period after which no action can possibly reverse the outcome.   If something is potentially about to happen, I suppose the standard of proof falls as action for survival becomes mandatory.

Where is the proof that something is about to happen, we only have ten years to act?   That information is a bit more sketchy.   Nobody dares to ask Gore et al. to support the "next ten year" assertion.   The foregone conclusion is we must act and we must act now!   There is no time for factual inquiry.

The documents and graph may be fakes but the conclusions drawn from them are authentic.   Facts are important only when we agree with the resulting policy they produce.   If Israel defends itself, we don't care what proof they have of violations of territorial sovereignty.   If Bush can't find the WMDs, he's a liar and no, those old shells, the dead bodies of thousands of Kurds and Iranians, the enriched Uranium, the presence of negotiators in a country which only produces Uranium in direct defiance of a treaty and "The Bomb in my Garden" are not enough to prove WMDs.   It doesn't matter if 40% of Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombers attacking Jews is as wholesome as soccer, most Muslims love peace and embrace multiculturalism.   The hockey stick is right in concept, if not based upon proven facts and accepted statistical methods.   Yes, the National Guard documents were fakes but the conclusion they reach was authentic.   It all depends on how you view things.

When I was schoolboy, my teachers taught that lack of discipline would eventually bring our society down.   Many scoffed at the notion.   Today, many will scoff at the notion that the almost complete breakdown in standards of proof will eventually lead us into the abyss.   When scientific inquiry agrees with conclusions in the presence of contrary fact or in the absence of supporting fact, you've got to wonder what's next.

Civilization is impossible without Reason.   When Reason is impossible, we have already entered into Anarchy.   When fact disputes conclusion and we act anyways because we "know" conclusion to be true, we are in a place known generally as Chaos.   When facts mean nothing and nothing means fact, we are in Hell.   Double Standards of Proof create an intellectual cesspool.   Somebody flush the toilet and put us out of our misery.

As we approach the next school year here in my state, I am reminded that we need to teach our kids some of the history which will not be taught in school.   Here are a few lessons you may want to highlight:

1) Bill Clinton was the last Democrat President.   He left office in virtual shame because he was a sexual predator and generally promiscuous man who used his position of power to cajole a young woman into playing sex games during regular office hours when he should have been paying attention to business.

2) Before Clinton, the previous Democrat President was Carter who was a complete disaster as President pushing the economy into an unprecedented state of spiraling inflation during high unemployment - something that is not supposed to happen.   Children have no idea what 20+% inflation can do to a person even if he is lucky enough to have a job.   Those who don't spiral downwards into oblivion.   Carter brought us this before he brought us the Iran hostage crisis which he similarly mismanaged.   Americans were so upset with Carter that they refused to give him a second term to fix the significant problems his ridiculous policies caused.

3) Before Carter, we had the Kennedy - Johnson years.   Kennedy won 49.9% of the vote - he was not the unanimously popular President some history books and news media people would like us to believe.   Kennedy championed civil rights legislation but aside from that, he was a decidedly conservative politician despite being a Democrat.   And his civil rights legislation languished in Congress because so many southern Democrats were opposed to it.   After Kennedy's assassination, Johnson, an admitted bigot, championed the civil rights cause which ultimately resulted in the legislation we are saddled with today.   Johnson was easily elected President one year after Kennedy was killed.

Aside from the results of the vote, Johnson was an immensely unpopular President, particularly due to the mess he caused in Vietnam.   While Kennedy was responsible for bringing the country into Vietnam, Johnson totally screwed it up and dumped huge amounts of men and money into the war.

To sum up, since 1960, we have had 4 Democrats as President.   One used this country's highest office to pad his pockets, keep his friends out of jail, and to engage in what is commonly referred to today as sexual harassment.   One was an abject failure who made life in these United States miserable.   One was killed before his time, was decidedly conservative though a champion of civil rights, was never as popular as many would have you believe, and was responsible for Vietnam.   The fourth was immensely unpopular and probably responsible for this country's unwillingness to defend ourselves internationally.

A federal judge has ruled against the government in the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.   Prepare for the sh-tstorm.   Apparently the door to this judge's closet is standing wide open.   Those who disagree with this Carter appointee are about to remove the closet's contents and review them in public.

I'll make a prediction here.   U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will end up before Congress on an examination of her record and some of the larger abuses of office she has engaged in.   The manner in which this case and several others just happened to come before her will be scrutinized.   Hasn't anyone ever told thus judge to shut the G-- D--- DOOR?!   Liberals are notoriously bad at covering their tracks because they think they have the right to impose their political beliefs on the everyone else.

The Weather Channel has been turning up the heat of late.   They jumped on the Anthropogenic global warming bandwagon some time ago but over the past several months they have really turned up the heat.   They place far greater emphasis on heat than is necessary or supported by the facts.

Tonight, the TWC "Storm Stories" segement covered the 1995 Chicago heat wave and left the viewer believing that heat is the most deadly of all weather events in this country.   That's simply not true.   On average, 200 people die each year from heat related ailments.   Those include the jogger who insists on doing his daily 5 miles when its 90 outside.   That includes football players doing triple sessions without proper amounts of water in August.   That includes all sorts of stupid behavior "accidents" which happen whether it is 105 or 90 outside.   By way of comparison, 100 people die as a result of seashore rip currents each year.   By comparison, almost a thousand people die falling out of or over beds, chairs, and other furniture.   The very simple truth is the number of people who die from naturally occurring cold is three times as great as the number of heat related deaths.

But the Weather Channel isn't really interested in the truth.   They are interested in entertaining, in getting you to watch their station so they can sell advertising.   Sure, they must be reliable when they give you the forecast, as reliable as anyone can be.   But they have a lot of time to fill and they fill it up with sometimes interesting fare.   The truth takes a back seat to entertainment.

I found the segment on Chicago interesting not only because of the emphasis on heat as a killer but also because of the ways in which Chicago is trying to combat the heat.   the segment discussed a multi-prong attack against heat undertaken by the city.   Two important prongs were a requirement that all newly constructed building have reflective roofs and the placement of roof-top gardens on many buildings.   I understand the notion of reflective roofs although it does nothing to mitigate the urban heat island.   Most roofs of high rises are covered with white stones which themselves do reflect light back into the sky.   Trouble is that does nothing to relieve the heat buildup in concrete and other building materials which is at the root of the urban heat island.   It isn't so much sunlight absorption as it is lack of convection back into the atmosphere at the end of the day.   One doesn;t need to prevent warmup but rather permit cool down.

The reflective roof thing aside, it remains unclear what one would expect from the placement of a garden on top of a building.   Plants are mostly green.   Green and anything else dark absorbs sunlight causing it to warm.   A garden atop an otherwise white, stone roof causes more heat to be absorbed and retained than otherwise would be the case.   But TWC failed to point out the folly of Chicago's policy.   Not once was it even considered.   Heck it sounds like Chicago is serious about fighting heat.   I suppose that's all the politicians were after.

As time passes, there become fewer and fewer places to turn to in order to figure out the truth.   An otherwise apparently scientific TV channel has jumped into the global warming pornography game.

I received the following in an e-mail and can't say these things any better than the author, Raymond S. Kraft, has.   Please read it and at least consider whether you understand the context which the author is referring to:

Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

At that time the U.S. was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage, Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing.   We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers.   Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe.   Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.   Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.   America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia.   That was about it.   All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was certainly not prepared for war.   America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WWI and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks.   And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).   Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.   Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.

Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the U.S. got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world.   And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated.   They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews.   This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas.   Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.   The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter?   You want the dollar to be worth anything?   You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements.   We have to do it somewhere.   And we can't do it everywhere at once.   We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein.   Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam had been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades.   Saddam was a terrorist.

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq.   We have focused the battle.   We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here.   We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928.   It did not begin with Pearl Harbor.   It began with the Japanese invasion of China.   It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it.   It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of U.S. occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars.   WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York.   It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.   But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned by 30 second sound bites, 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that.   It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes bloody and ugly.   Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East.   The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates.   The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war.   And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons.   Unless somebody prevents them.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe.   It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes.   All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win.   The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.   Forty-two years.   Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan.   World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The U.S. has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq.   The U.S. took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.   In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years.   Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high ... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and