Despite many suggestions to the contrary, this has not been a good year for Muslim extremists or those countries which would like to see Israel removed from the map - whether they say so publicly or not.   Whatever American costs in Iraq have been, the costs to Muslims at large have been far deeper.   There is growing distrust not only of Americans but also of fundamentalist Muslims.   And nothing much has been gained for Middle Eastern Muslims over the past year and more.   The ridiculous kidnapping of Israeli soldiers still has not been resolved and nobody is suggesting it might be.   But now Syria comes forth with what it believes is an olive branch.   Syria would like peace with Israel!   And all they ask in return is the Golan Heights!!   Can you say deliberate strategy?   Does anyone think for a moment that anything which comes out of the mouths of Middle Eastern Muslims has anything but complete and total genocide behind it?

Candidate for US Senate, Democrat Robert Menendez, is showing himself to be more than just your average caring liberal, anti-Bush dude.   Apparently, the underwear hiding in his closet is soiled.   FBI tapes show he has abused power vested in him by New Jersey's electorate over many decades.   He apparently sent his minions to bully people receiving government contracts into hiring Menendez' friends.   The word used to describe the arrangement was "PROTECTION" which, to those unfamiliar with New Jersey, is mafia-speak for extortion.

Please do read more on this development:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/15634218.htm

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/story/6794303p-6662221c.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216284,00.html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060929-120420-5284r.htm

The following appears in a Reuters report published in the Washington Post today entitled "White House says no change on carbon strategy:"

"Bush pulled out of the 163-nation Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 2001, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly left rapidly developing countries like China and India without limits on emissions."

If you want to understand where Kyoto stands today, check out Wikipedia's summary.   They at least have this much straight.   US President Bush has not "pulled out" of the protocol.   Al Gore symbolically signed the thing when he, as Vice President, had no authority to do so.   Clinton never even submitted it for ratification by the Senate - all treaties must be ratified by the Senate in order to be effective - because the Senate unanimously approved the Byrd-Hagel Resolution stating that we would not ratify the agreement due to numerous fatal flaws.   Bush has been opposed to it mostly for the same reasons all our Senators were and continue to be against it.

Now this fact is not unknown to the media.   I would be willing to wager large sums that if you walked into Reuters or the Washington Post, randomly selected a reporter and quizzed him on these facts, he would pass.   If you took every reporter at these two MSM outlets and made them take the same quiz, a very high percentage would pass.   Still, they continue to report almost daily that Bush pulled out of Kyoto.

Why the MSM refuses to report the truth in this regard is anyone's guess.   There's no denying that they report the lie almost on a daily basis.   Draw your own conclusions but there's no room in there for "maybe they're right" or "maybe they don't know" selections.

The left-wing French news service, AFP, reports that a group called, "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" (PCRM) filed a lawsuit against McDonald's, Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Chili's, Applebee's, Outback Steakhouse and TGI Friday's, for serving up grilled chicken without posting warnings that such food contains a compound called, "PhIP"...

PhIP is one of a group of carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) that are found in grilled meat. In 2005, the US government officially added HCAs to its list of cancer-causing agents, the doctors' group said.

There's nothing wrong with the chicken. PhIP is something that happens naturally with cooked chicken.

But the real story is about this "doctors' group" called PCRM.

According to ActivistCash, this group is actually an animal rights group posing as a consumer health advocate...

PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its operational and financial ties to other animal activist groups and its close relationship with violent zealots, PCRM has successfully duped the media and much of the general public into believing that its pronouncements about the superiority of vegetarian-only diets represent the opinion of the medical community.

You ought to read the rest of what ActivistCash says about these guys. They cite sources like Newsweek and New York Times, a couple of liberal news publishers, that make PCRM sound like zombies.

Perhaps the most laughable part is that the AFP reported this story by actually describing the PCRM as "doctors' group". ActivistCash says that only 5% of PCRM's membership are actually doctors. They go on to cite the American Medical Association (AMA)...

The American Medical Association (AMA), which actually represents the medical profession, has called PCRM a "fringe organization" that uses "unethical tactics" and is "interested in perverting medical science."

I guess when you have a group that has to conceal its true intentions you know there's something bad underneath.

If you read or heard about the NY Times article called "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat" last week, here is a must read by Robert Kagan questioning whether we can say Iraq is creating terrorists.

Publish long enough and you'll be right about half the Time.   The following are some Time magazine clips from past publications.   Try to match the years (1923, 1939, 1951, 1963, 1974, 1977, 1984, 1994, 1997, 2006) with the date of publication for the following and look below for the correct answers:

A) "Those who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... no doubt that the world ... is growing warmer."

B) "As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

C) "Temperatures in dozens of cities dropped to all-time lows: -22 degrees F in Pittsburgh; -25 degrees in Akron, Ohio, and Clarksburg, West Virginia; -27 degrees in Indianapolis, Indiana.   Chicago schools closed because of cold weather for the first time in history ... The last (ice age) ended about 10,000 years ago; the next one -- for there will be a next one -- could start tens of thousands of years from now.   Or tens of years.   Or it may have already started."

D) "In Russia the southern limit of permafrost (permanently frozen ground) is receding northward up to 100 yards a year.   Many Norwegian slopes are raising barley where only grass grew before.   Even the fish of the North Atlantic are taking advantage of the change.   The cod, which are very sensitive to temperature changes, have migrated northward some 500 miles"

E) "The consequences could be catastrophic.   A worldwide average temperature drop of only 1 degree Celsius could shorten growing seasons in the temperate zones enough to threaten global food supplies.   Increased heating requirements would further strain energy resources such as coal, natural gas and oil."

F) "From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.   Scientists have been calling this shot for decades."

G) "For all its (Antartic ice sheet) importance, however, it is on average less than 2 ft. thick, and its stability depends on a precarious balance of factors ranging from air temperature to the salinity and temperature of the water ... Some change in Antarctic climate is already noticeable.   It seems to be snowing more often at the South Pole."

H) "The President saw the glaciers and (saw) ... a large fragment of ice fall from the ice cliff into the river with a great splash."

I) "ecological apocalypse may be at hand ... glaciers do not recover from this type of abuse."

J) "The rustle of spring to a growing horde of enthusiasts is the sound of skis knifing through good corn snow.   Spring skiing is the latest - and many say the greatest - form of snow fun, and it is bringing out a new breed of bum and bunny in Europe and the U.S. ... men, women and children will be schussing their weekends away at least until the Fourth of July (last year the skiing lasted well into August)."

No peaking until you've at least tried!

Answers: A) 1939; B) 1974; C) 1994; D) 1951; E) 1977; F) 2006; G) 1997; H) 1923; I) 1984; J) 1963

My inspiration for this fun little quiz is a speech made yesterday by Senator James Inhofe Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee entitled Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming which went largely unreported by the media!

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claims William Jefferson Clinton did not leave "a comprehensive plan to fight al Qaeda when his term ended."   Asked for a response to this allegation, Clinton fired back, "That's not true.   It really all depends on how you define the terms: 'did,' 'not' 'leave,' 'comprehensive,' 'plan,' 'fight,' 'al,' 'Qaeda,' 'term,' and 'ended.'"

Wherever the Democrats want our military fighting men and women redeployed to, let's hope it is not Brazil.   If it is, the time is now to reconsider the move.   Brazil is a poor choice because the country's rate of homicide is worse than Iraq's.   Reuters reports 55,000 Brazilians were murdered in 2005.   That's a little higher than the number of civilian deaths caused by insurgents and the military combined over a three year period in Iraq!   But this is not a good comparison since Brazil doesn't actually have a civil war going on.   In fact the South American country has a stable government!   Imagine if it didn't!

It is becoming increasingly obvious to Democrats that the way to power in this country right now is to be "tough on terror."   Chairman Dean said last week, Dem.s want to approach this problem by being "tough and smart."   Numerous accounts this morning are aimed at convincing the public that the party with the real track record of dealing with al Qaida is the Democrats.   That's why Chris Wallace's apparently simple question put to Bill Clinton elicited such a harsh rebuke in reply.   (If you'd like to view some of the Wallace interview, try video clip one and two)   Clinton could not afford to allow anyone to question his anti-terror efforts at this point so close to elections because his party's entire effort for the remainder of this election cycle is going to be one in which they paint the Democrat party as historically tough on terror.   But, is that realistic?

Several blog posts this morning about Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts hang their hats on this story by CNN: "President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws" which is listed as having been originally reported July 30, 1996.   The story reflects very badly upon Republicans.   It paints them as not believing there was much threat from terrorism while Clinton was adamant about getting something done to confront it.

The story is useful to Democrats because it exists in a vacuum.   There isn't much meat there.   It just says Clinton wanted Congress to do something about terror now and then gives examples of Republicans being against the legislation.   Let's put a little more perspective into the mix.

Most of the links to this story date to 2001 or 2002.   Strangely, the story was not archived by the "way back machine" of archive.org until 2001.   In fact, nothing of CNN's web site was archived before 2000 because there just wasn't much on the site and nobody linked to it - archive.org pretty much captured anything linked to beginning around 1996.   So why did these sites which linked to the story include links to it in 2002 as a "news story?"   Why wasn't this news in 1996?

Well, let's go back to 1996 for a moment shall we?   We didn't think much of terrorism in 1996.   The US had certainly been attacked.   Obviously the first attempt at the WTC was years before that.   But, if you'll remember, we pretty much laughed at the effort of those idiot terrorists.   My friends and I thought they were nuts for thinking they could bring down a building like the WTC at all, let alone with a stupid little car bomb.   Even though one of my close associates at the time had a cousin who was a fireman who was permanently crippled responding to that attack, we actually laughed at it.   We wondered why those idiots didn't stick to what they knew, hijacking planes and cruise ships!   Terrorists were a mere nuisance back in those days!

Back in 1996, our internet access was not quite what it is now either.   I remember sitting in a business meeting with the development guys at a fast growing media company back around that time.   One fellow had this computer disk and he held it up in the air for all to see.   The disk had the logo of a company called "America Online" on it.   It contained the program one would use to gain access to the internet.   The fellow chuckled and said, this company doesn't have a chance of even getting off the ground!   They'll never turn a profit.   Midway through the year, the company offered a version for MS Windows.   Many people didn't subscribe though because their 50-100 mb hard drives couldn't hold the program with Windows, Lotus and Wordperfect and because after five hours of use per month, the thing got really expensive.

Towards the end of 1996, AOL announced unlimited use for just $19.95!   Blasphemy!!   Unlimited use?   They'll lose their shirts!!!   But my family did get subscribe in 1996.   We did so because I earned a big bonus and we were able to afford the thousands of dollars for a machine with a 250 mb hard drive!

So the reason why nobody linked to this story about Clinton back then is because there was nobody to do the linking and nobody to follow the links.   Blogs hadn't been invented.   Those boys from Google were still mere grad students.   They had just started to get along as pals and their idea was for a search engine called "BackRub," named for its unique ability to analyze the "back links" pointing to a given website.   It was a different day for computers, web sites and Americans' views of terrorism.

As I said, the CNN news story exists in a vacuum.   It says Clinton wanted something done immediately to confront terrorism.   But that's not wholly accurate since it came on the heals of the enactment of the "Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995."   That bill addressed a host of terrorism targeted issues including penalties, international implications and electronic surveillance.   The bill was sponsored, not by a Democrat, but rather by Bob Dole.

What Clinton was talking about in the CNN story was legislation dealing with explosive materials.   He was concerned with how the US dealt with these in the wake of the pipe bomb found in the Olympic Village and the investigation of the crash of TWA Flight 800.   Obviously Flight 800 was an unrelated issue.   The Olympic Park bombing was domestic terrorism, not international, and the issues it raised had mostly to do with people getting bomb making material inside the US.   So Clinton was not being tough on terrorism in July 1996.   He was upset about people being able to buy materials with which to make bombs inside the US.

That's enough about what Clinton did and didn't do to combat terrorism.   Let's look at what all our government officials did back then.   The key piece of legislation before September 11, 2001 was the "Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995."   How well did that deal with the risks to American civilians?

The Conference Committee version of the bill which ultimately became law contains some interesting pieces.   Here's one on eavesdropping:

"SEC. 810. STUDY AND REPORT ON ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall study all applicable laws and guidelines relating to electronic surveillance and the use of pen registers and other trap and trace devices.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Congress that includes--

(1) the findings of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a);

(2) recommendations for the use of electronic devices in conducting surveillance of terrorist or other criminal organizations, and for any modifications in the law necessary to enable the Federal Government to fulfill its law enforcement responsibilities within appropriate constitutional parameters;

(3) a summary of instances in which Federal law enforcement authorities may have abused electronic surveillance powers and recommendations, if needed, for constitutional safeguards relating to the use of such powers; and

(4) a summary of efforts to use current wiretap authority, including detailed examples of situations in which expanded authority would have enabled law enforcement authorities to fulfill their responsibilities."

Our government wanted to look and study!   As if we needed to study electronic surveillance in 1996.   That was hardly the stone age and electronic surveillance was not a new species then.   Maybe internet access was uncommon but electronic surveillance was decades old and communications had been eavesdropped upon for many administrations.   This is not an example of being tough on terrorism.   This piece of legislation shows how much lip service was paid by simply passing bills which seemed to deal with the problem.   Obviously that law did nothing to prevent September 11.

Now, you can go back through the Congressional record and find numerous examples of terrorism targeted bills.   But you can't point to a single effort which could be called "tough" or "smart."   The fact is nobody in this country, including our military and our law enforcement experts was either tough or smart with respect to terrorism before September 11, 2001.   You can;t view anyone's record before that point unless you put historical perspective upon it and view the substance of what was said and done.

Clinton did give us a little more of his perspective on terrorism this past weekend.   He said to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, "our problems come from "the illusion that our differences matter more than our common humanity.   That's what's driving the terrorism.   It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict.   Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have - and some women - who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."

So, there you have it.   Bill Clinton's and the Democrat party's solution to the nuisance of international terrorism is to convince Muslim fundamentalist extremists that we are all just humans.   We need to try to get along better.   And we must also improve their economic conditions.   That's the way to bring down al Qaida and put an end to terrorism!   Didn't we try that already?

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton.   I probably wouldn't vote for her to be the next President, something she adamantly denies even thinking about running for.   But all this stuff aside, I have to admire her for her consistency on the Iraq War.   Says Mrs. Clinton, "I can only look at what I knew at the time because I don't think you get do-overs in life ... I think you have to take responsibility and hopefully learn from it and go forward."   And her firm position has not been an easy one to hold onto.   She says, "I've taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, 'Please, just throw in the towel and say let's get out by a date certain ... I don't think that's responsible."   This is what distinguishes her from the likes of John Kerry and many others within the Democrat party who do in fact want to time-travel and reverse their previously stated and voted upon positions.   They want do-overs.   They want to throw in the towel when the going gets tough.   Hillary Clinton is at least mature enough to realize one must take responsibility for one's own decisions.   One must finish what one starts.   For that attitude, integrity and maturity, I applaud Senator Hillary Clinton.

First we discover that it was Armitage who "leaked" Valerie Plame to the media.   Next he's supposed to have threatened Pakistan with a "bombing into the stone age" if they failed to cooperate with our battle against the Taliban and al Qaida.   Something just doesn't seem right here.

Forgive me for my naive any man thinking but for some reason I just cannot see a US government envoy threatening to bomb a sovereign country back into the stone age when that country hasn't done anything against us.   I could see a phrase like that used with Libya before they saw the light.   There are other countries with whom we have had tense relationships which I think could lead to that sort of word choice.   I just don't think Pakistan is one of them.

It is a little too convenient that someone no longer a part of the administration, someone who is out of favor in all political circles, would take the blame.   It seems to me as if Pakistan is simply pointing a finger in a harmless direction to explain why they have cooperated with the US.   There are a lot of fundamentalist Muslims, many extremists, in Pakistan who would like nothing more than to find a reason to overthrow the government and form a Taliban-like regime.   They don't like their government helping out the US.   They would prefer their country stood side by side with bin Laden.   Pakistan President Musharraf knows this better than anyone in the west.

Musharraf must keep the masses quiet or risk a revolution.   So he's found a convenient way to accomplish that.   He's asking his people if they would have preferred he helped the infidel US or instead wanted their country to look like Afghanistan, after 30 years of war, perhaps worse.

Somehow Armitage just seems like an easy fall guy.

Raving maniac Howard Dean is beginning to put his thoughts down in print so the rest of us can analyze the inconsistencies for ourselves.   Thanks Howie!   Today Dean's editorial letter is published in the Wall Street Journal.   So, let's take a look-see, shall we?

Dean says, "We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror."   He then goes into a diatribe about family income, budget deficits and Iraq.   So his first punch-line is never again addressed in the argument.   It's just that we need Democrats to fight the war on terror.   Never mind that every major piece of legislation in this war has been a bipartisan effort, beginning with the 9/11 commission and their recommendations.   And there is nothing specific in Dean's words about what the Democrats would do differently.   We are left with John Kerry's words claiming they would do just about everything differently.

Dean's main focus seems to be the deficit and family income.   He claims even with "spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the response to Hurricane Katrina, the federal budget would essentially be in balance if the tax cuts had not been enacted."   This sounds great.   Just roll back those tax cuts and everything will be great.   But the results of those tax cuts were exactly what any economist could have told you they would be.   Overall tax collections increased significantly.   That's always what happens with tax cuts.   Every time those darn things are tried, government income increases markedly.   There's no hiding from this fact.

Dean attacks Bush's record on the incomes of the average "typical middle class" family.   I'd like to know specifically what a President does to improve this.   Average income has more to do with productivity gains than anything else.   Under Clinton use of computers to perform ordinary business functions dramatically increased no thanks to Clinton or even the invention of the Internet by Al Gore.   That stuff just happened.   No administration or congressional initiative caused it.   The free market, unencumbered by government, was responsible for increases in American wages.

Dean says under Bush, "Health and retirement coverage have declined for most workers and their families, and workers' costs have increased."   To translate, private businesses pinched workers.   Not a good trend, but again, not the domain of government, at least not in our society.   He also complains, "Retirement coverage has also declined."   Ditto.   What I'd like to see is exactly what the Democrats would do to change these two circumstances.   Rhetoric does not compel businesses to provide greater fringe benefits.   Competitive pressures do.   The only way to change the amount of benefits workers receive via governmental effort is to tax businesses and nationalize worker benefits.   France and much of Europe has done that.   Where has it left them?   At a competitive disadvantage which leads to reduced wages.

Dean sees the results of these bad economic times: "Americans are taking on more debt just to keep up in the Republican economy.   Last year, household debt was a record 132% of disposable income.   Not surprisingly, home mortgage foreclosures are also up; in March of this year, the foreclosure rate was 63% higher than last year."   Um, debt is up because people mortgaged their homes more as house values skyrocketed.   If you read any news over the past couple of years you would know that.   You'd also know that's at least partially why our economy has been soaring.   The other side of the debt thing has to do with education.   But Dean also addresses that.

"While wages and incomes have slowed, health costs increased, debt increased and retirement coverage declined, the cost of sending kids to college has exploded. Between 1995 and '96 and 2005 and '06, the average costs for a four-year private college rose 32% and for a four-year public college, 42%."   Gee whiz, that is a major concern.   But that is a trend which has been going on for a very long time, dating back to at least the 1970s.   And liberals are in charge of most, if not all, of the nation's Universities.   Would a Democrat controlled Congress be able to roll back tuition costs because they have an "in" with academics?   Again, specifics, please, Mr. Dean.

Dean does take a shot at what he sees as the cause of these problems.   "These dwindling economic fortunes have resulted partly from a decline in unionization, which has been exacerbated by the all-out assault of the Bush Republicans on workers' rights to organize and bargain.   From stripping away union protections for whole classes of workers to intervening in labor-management disputes in various industries, Mr. Bush, backed by a Republican Congress, has done more to undermine workers' rights than any president in more than 70 years."   Huh?   What did Bush do?

Mr. Dean, are you saying that if we increased union membership, we would see health care and retirement benefits increase, the forces would come home from Iraq, family debt and college tuition decrease, and as a result the homeland would be safer?

Dean ends by delineating numerous goals - the same goals which have appeared in every major political statement by either party for as long as I have been alive but which are never actually addressed by legislation sponsored by either party, let alone achieved.

"We will restore honesty in government."   OK, let's start by having the party remove folks like Menendez in New Jersey.

"We will restore the pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress that served Mr. Clinton so well."   Do you mean we'll cut military and intelligence spending to the bone in order to achieve a politically popular notion amongst the uneducated that deficit spending is always wrong?

"We will ease the burdens on middle class Americans and reverse Republican cuts in college tuition aid and health care."   Um, the tuition aid, to which most middle class working people are never entitled, costs plenty and has little impact on tuition rates other than to drive them up for those who have to pay out of pocket.

"We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, including pension reform, and preventing the privatization of social security."   Mr. Bush tried this and was rebuffed by Republican and Democrat alike.   Otherwise we would have begun privatization already.   Unfortunately, that is a dead issue.   And we'll pay dearly in the future for the folly of short-term thinking.

"We will dramatically expand support of energy independence in order to generate large numbers of new American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."   How can we do that without drilling ANWR or off the coast of Florida where the Chinese are now obtaining their oil, thanks to Cuban wells 45 miles off our coast?   If your plan is windmills, check with Ted Kennedy first.

"We will have a jobs agenda that includes good jobs that stay in America, a higher minimum wage and trade policies that benefit the global labor force, not just multinational corporations."   Uh, these are mutually exclusive but I suspect, Howie, you were at a frat party the day that class was taught in remedial economics.

"We will have a defense policy that is tough and smart, starting with phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq, and shore up our efforts to attack al Qaeda and fight the war on terror.   We also will close the gaps in our security here at home by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations."   Geeze Louise, Howie.   How will we be tough and smart?   What does tough and smart mean?   You mean we'll bring the boys and girls back here so we can fight al Qaeda in a place where we have more people and resources for the fight - within the US?   Call me stupid but I thought the reaction to the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission was legislation passed by bi-partisan vote.   What more are Democrats going to do?

So Howard Dean wants a Democrat controlled US Congress.   He wants this so we can be "tough and smart."   He wants businesses to provide more benefits while paying a higher minimum wage, keeping jobs here and being more internationally competitive.   He wants to reinstate the marriage penalty.   This will cause us to be safer while paying less for college tuition.   The path to a greater America is clear, Unionize!

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is mad at the United Kingdom's Royal Society.   What has upset him so is the society's recent accusations that Exxon/Mobil is the force behind global warming skeptics.   Moore wrote, in a letter published in British media, "It appears to be the policy of the Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity."   Apparently the Greenpeace founder, unlike all leftists and many moderates in the US, does not believe the debate is over.   He further writes, "I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the difference between an hypothesis and a theory.   It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is an hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory.   Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way."

Here, here!

Moore considers anyone who would attempt to stifle discussion of causes of global warming, and put forth the notion that the debate is over, to be "anti-intellectual."

Those darn head-in-the-sand conservatives!   They never get on board with the scientific consensus.   They just don't understand anything unless it is black and white.   Are you listening, Mr. Gore?

States are complaining about the cost of federal security rules for issuing driver's licenses.   The requirements are contained in the Real ID Act of 2005.   States say the total cost of impementation will be $11 billion and wonder where that money will come from.   That's a fair concern.   $11 billion is a lot of money.   Maybe there is a way to spread out this cost.

According to one web site I found, "there are 107 million US households, each with an average of 1.9 cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles and 1.8 drivers, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported.   That equals 204 million vehicles and 191 million drivers." &nbap; If you divide $11 billion by that number of drivers, you obtain the tidy sum of about $58 per driver.   It costs me more than that to register my car each year.

Some of the costs to comply with the Real ID Act are undoubtedly long-term in nature.   It can't cost that much just to produce the licenses.   So perhaps the states can finance a portion which would be recooped via license surcharges over say the next ten years.   That might bring the cost this year to drivers down to around $27, the cost of a gas tank fill for half a week's use.   Then drivers could pay the remaining $27 plus financing costs over the following ten years which would add maybe 4 or 5 bucks to the annual charge.

Heck the states don't blink when they double registration fees or add significantly to what they charge us for licenses any other time.   Why should they complain now?

The German military has mobilized and is moving towards its peace-keeping role in Lebanon.   The country is sending 8 naval vessels into their support role for the UN peacekeeping forces.   No foot soldiers are included in its force.   That's because Germany won't be putting any boots on the ground.

I didn't see who exactly was going to be supplying the blue helmets for this force.   Maybe France will step in and offer that up as its contribution.   Somebody will undoubtedly offer to feed the force.   Another country will supply tents, another uniforms, another underwear, another warm blankets, and yet another will maybe provide logistical support.   But who is going to put their soldiers on the ground?

It boggles the mind to see the inaction behind the words condemning the conflict.   If the world is 6 billion people and the US a mere 300 million of this total, why cannot the remaining 5.7 billion people of the world come up with a few thousand good men to try to enforce the peace everyone offers lip service about?

There was no word about how the German contingent or anyone else planned to secure the freedom of the two Israeli reservists whose kidnapping started this whole thing.

Bill Clinton warned against "wide torture approval" today in an interview with NPR.   He noted that any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review.   "You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture."

Maybe you don't need blanket approval for torture but you certainly do need to define what constitutes torture.   That's true whether you are looking for a way to instruct interrogators about what they cannot do or you are a judge trying to discern whether a line has been crossed.   The comments this year regarding torture suggest that playing music too loudly, sleep deprivation, or placing a book on a toilet constitute torture.   How loud is "too loud?"   When is a person said to be deprived of sleep?   How many hours does he need?   Is it torture if a cell faces the east and the sun comes up before the prisoner has obtained some pre-set amount of sleep?   Can we codify that certain books can never be placed on a toilet?   What else needs clarification?   Is allowing a prisoner's foot fungus to go too far torture?   What about allergies?   If we do not keep these prisoners completely physically fit, are we not torturing them?   Should we require a course of exercise?   When does that cross the line into torture.

Don't give me a wink and a nod and claim, "heck, we all know what torture is."   If I do what I think is right and fair, but you think it is torture, tell me why in objective terms.   I cannot handle my duties if every motion I make must be subjected to court review.   And those courts need some sort of bright line demarcation of what constitutes torture or they cannot conduct their inquiry into whether my actions have crossed the line.   Should another court oversee their inquiry?   Do we need another court to oversee the inquiry overseeing the inquiry?   This is not how rational societies work.   At some point, the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men) must require objective standards which can be understood by the ordinary, common man and woman.   Without law, we have despotism of the wise men.   And that is subject to the whims of those who would call themselves wise.

The Reuters story discussing Clinton's comments says, "Clinton warned against circumventing international standards on prisoner treatment, citing U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, criticism of treatment at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists and a secret CIA prison system outside the United States."   He said, "The president says he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're when they whacking these people around in these secret prisons."

Well, first off, let's dispense with Abu Ghraib since it is an example not of systematic torture during interrogation.   Rather it is an example of the acts of a few deranged people who were perhaps extremely poorly supervised.   The prison is a big place and it has never been alleged that these abuses were systematic or deliberately performed at the direction of higher ups.   They certainly weren't used as any sort of device with respect to the conduct of interrogations.

Guantanamo is another issue entirely.   There the most damning evidence of "torture" was the placing of the Qu'ran on toilets.   Perhaps this was systematic or done in conjunction with interrogations.   But torture?   Surely we can discern between that and torture?   Or maybe we can't since we cannot enact an objective standard.

And as to the "secret CIA prison system," as I pointed out yesterday, that has never been proven.   There is no "prison system" unless you consider a handful of detainees - the really, bad ones at that, being questioned for a period of time at some group of locations.   This number has never risen above a handful and does not constitute a system.   Besides, nobody has ever suggested that torture was performed at these locations.

What would the great man have us do when we capture somebody like bin Laden, prosecute via the US criminal justice system, or simply let the guy go?   Oh yeah, he wouldn't have had him arrested in the first place.

But I am going astray.   My point is that if you cannot exert enough effort to define "torture," then either everything is torture or nothing is.   You cannot slick willy-nilly decide everything based on the wisdom of some judge.   There has to be an objective standard.   Of course, Willy doesn't like objective standards because they would dictate definitions for things like what constitutes "sex" ("I did not have sex with that woman"), "as well as other terms by which wiseman William Jefferson Clinton does not wish to be pinned down.

What should you call recommendations made by a bi-partisan committee once they reach the House floor?   Here's what Democrats called them: "a modern-day poll tax" and "an insurmountable burden on voters."

The recommendations resulted in a bill, which passed along party lines yesterday, called the "Voter ID" bill.   The bipartisan panel which suggested it was headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican.   Now, I'm not a fan of Jimmy Carter but, if there is any subject on which he can be called an expert, clearly that subject would be the conduct of fair elections.   The man has taken in part in the oversight of too many elections to count.   He rarely calls one fair.   If Carter has anything useful to say, it is most likely about how to improve elections.   His words?   "Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system."   So what is the disenfranchising act, the poll-tax, the insurmountable burden contained in the piece of legislation?   Valid photo ID - the thing you need to buy cigarettes or beer or board an airplane!

I'm sorry sir, I can't sell you booze or cigarettes but would you like to vote, instead?   Maybe you can put somebody in office who will do away with the ID requirements for airline travel.

The Sierra Club has announced its backing for NJ Senate candidate Robert Menedez despite the candidate's significant ethical challenges including his votes for government funding for his own private business client and to prevent the merger of businesses competing with his significant investment holding.   Menendez is being supported by Sierra without any regard to his status as Democrat party boss and despite the fact that the organization has previously recognized his competitor, Tom Kean, Jr., as, in the words of the organization's spokeswoman, "having one of the best environmental records."   The organization is backing Menendez because of "questions about Kean's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol."   Kean drives a Hybrid, opposes drilling in ANWR, and has said Bush is "dead wrong on the environment."   Still, Sierra questions Kean's commitment.   In every race this year, liberals favor a dirty Democrat party boss over a clean, environmentally friendly, liberal Republican.   What does that tell you?

There has been an interesting chain of events this week, to say the least.

Venezuelan Communist Dictator Hugo Chavez called US President George Bush the Devil and suggested he needs psychiatric help.

NBC Today show host Meredith Vieira warns us not to dismiss Chavez' message!   How can a self-respecting liberal condemn a Communist Dictator.

OK, so I called Chavez a dictator when he was actually put in office by an open election.   But his actions since being in power have eroded democratic and free market institutions.   The government recently "declared its plans to take a controlling stake in four heavy oil upgrading ventures in the oil-rich Orinoco belt by the end of the year.   It simultaneously announced a newly approved income tax rate of 50 percent, up from 34 percent, effective in January."   So the Venezuelan government is now in for half!   More importantly, Bloomberg reports Chavez has also called for a single national political party and a change to the constitution, allowing him to hold office without any term limit.   Said Chavez, "I insist that we create a single party of the revolution, a single party of the Venezuelan people."

One day Chavez may very well create a crisis which ends open elections.   He may have to.   The filthy rich Venezuelan government is unable to provide adequate housing to Chavez' political base, the majority impoverished poor.   Estimates place the Venezuelan housing deficit at around 1.7 million - in a country of just 25 million!

A few weeks ago I reminisced about my long-ago visit to Caracas, Venezuela and wondered if the slum I saw on a hillside was still there.   Today I have my answer.   The crumbling homes are being demolished by Chavez' government to prevent the evicted residents from moving back in.   The slum is being destroyed.   New homes are not being provided - but the embarassment is being removed.   Former residents are held in "government shelters" and they are not happy about it.

Also, the Drudge Report claims Chavez is returning home early from his NYC visit.   In the wake of his comments in a speech before the UN General Assembly, he cancelled numerous appointments and went home.

In other news, the Thai military coup continues apace.   Today there are reports political party meetings have been banned.

There are no reports suggesting Chavez' early return home is in any way related to the Thai military coup.   There is no word of any military coup taking place in Venezuela.   But if Chavez remains focused on the US, Iran and international matters unrelated to housing the poor, one wonders if there might be.

In completely unrelated news, the US is requiring Venezuela to close its military purchasing offices in Ohio and Florida.

Also unrelated is the announcement that the Venezuelan government was currently negotiating the purchase of Russian military hardware "including planes and helicopters.   This is in addition to the $3 billion worth of equipment agreed with Russia in July."

Draw your own conclusions.

The Colorado Reporter Herald published an article entitled "Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused."   Within the article is a discussion of a recent talk given by Dr. William Gray in which he claimed human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.   In order to achieve balance, the paper presented a view challenging Gray's position, that of Roger Pielke Jr.   Pielke says, "Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues."   But that is "good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding."   It is rather interesting that Journalists would use Pielke to debunk Gray's opinion when Pielke himself is a skeptic of carbon dioxide induced global warming.   A perusal of his blog Climate Science provides more ammunition to the global warming skeptics than any other single place on the web.   Pielke has been highly critical of the IPCC and been so in a very public manner.   If you are an anthropogenic greenhouse warming proponent or skeptic and are not familiar with Pielke, I wonder if you've had your head in the sand.   And, I urge you to read Climate Science.

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) freed thousands of farmed halibut which of course died once they were free.   The fish starved to death or were otherwise unable to cope with the new, "freer" environment filled with predators and seemingly innocuous seaweed.   If you're wondering, no, these people will never learn.

I don't care much for Presidential speeches regardless of who is making them.   Slick Willy got under my skin and made me puke.   Bush mostly bores me.   The great speaker, Reagan, couldn't hold my attention.   I prefer to read the transcripts of these speeches and judge them based on the cold printed words they contain.   I prefer not to filter them via the impassioned delivery of professional speakers.   Sometimes I am too lazy to hunt down the transcript and I rely on journalists' accounts of what was said.   That can be a dangerous way to get information.   My most recent misadventure shows me just how dangerous.

I didn't listen to Bush's speech on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 nor the one in the days leading up to it (September 6).   I stayed away from media during that period as much as I could because every time I tuned in to broadcasts, I was forced to relive the day.   I was forced to go through all those dreadful emotions which overwhelmed me at my office in midtown Manhattan and then followed me home for the next several days and weeks.

There's no value, for me, of going through the emotions of September 11, 2001.   I fully grieved the losses during the weeks which followed.   My biggest challenge was to move forward afterwards.   I recall the events like they were yesterday and I'm certain that will continue through the remainder of my life.   So I skipped much of the weeks-long "memorial services" brought into our homes by the media.   I avoided the usual media coverage of all things political for about two weeks.

After the anniversary of 9-11, I focused on media accounts of what has been said over the past couple of weeks.   I was a little under the weather and searching the internet to find actual speeches and then read through them didn't hold much appeal.   What I heard and read was a cacophony of accounts debating the President's admission that the CIA was running a system of secret prisons at which it interrogated "detainees" in the war on terror.   That cacophony continues today.   The key issue is no longer the admission but focuses instead on how immoral the US is, given the admission.   The admission is fact.   Its ramifications are the discussion points.

While I did not exactly have a Homer Simpson moment when I learned of the admission, I did think to myself, "Oh great, the secret European prison report was accurate.   Not only that but the US admitted that the evil agency, the CIA, was keeping its detention of "prisoners" secret from the public.   Obviously they must be torturing people."

While I don't necessarily disagree with agents of the CIA having at those who plot and plan terrorist attacks to kill American civilians and I don't necessarily disagree with the maintenance of "secret prisons" per se, I did see this whole episode as providing fodder for the anti-Bush crowd.   The same people who grabbed up Cindy Sheehan will use this supposed admission to prove once and for all that Bush is EVIL.   They'll attempt to use this to bring Congress back under Democrats' control as a stop-gap measure until they can also gain the Whitehouse.   I wondered why Bush would admit to something so politically damning as maintaining a system of secret prisons.   I wondered about the timing of the admission coming as it did during an election year in which his party was having serious difficulties to say the least.

Bush's admission is just the sort of thing liberals would use to bolster their position in this election.   Those same liberals would have us see terrorism as a nuisance the way John Kerry described it - like prostitution or gambling.   They would like us to react to 9/11 by promoting religious and cultural diversity classes in the nation's institutions of higher learning.   They believe once we understand them, they'll stop attacking us!   Perhaps these beliefs don't resonate with the public but there is little question that Bush maintaining clandestine torture chambers does.

So I went forward for a week or so figuring this election was just about over.   The liberals have won.   Conservatives should run for cover.   Bush is EVIL.   Anyone who votes Republican must be a supporter of torture and giving the CIA even more freedom to do as it wishes.

Fortunately for me, I have a serious pile of bookmarks with which to filter the news.   I may not go through them while I am down with some sort of sickness but eventually I make my way back to reality and consider whether or not I have a reasonable understanding of what has been going on.   So today I'm more or less back on my feet (or butt, to be accurate) and I'm pouring through the various web sites which question media reports.   One of these is Accuracy in Media (AIM) who while seeming to have a slightly conservative bias, generally does a very good job of picking apart the news as reported by the MSM and getting to the underlying truth.

I followed one headline concerning Al-Jazeera's plan to open an outlet in the US.   I don't much like Al-Jazeera because, to me, they have always seemed like a branch of al-Qaida.   Their bias goes beyond the mere cultural one you might expect from a group of Middle Easterners discussing world events.   And their relationship with bin Laden's crew is just a little too cozy.   So I followed the link and read the story.

About halfway down the page there is another story.   This one concerns the widely reported Bush admission to a "system of secret prisons for detainees."   I still hadn't made my way to the transcript of the 9/6/2006 speech but this AIM story not only disputes the claim he made such an admission, but also discusses exactly what he did say and why the media felt the need to "interpret" the actual words.

If you would like to read the actual speech, it is published on the Whitehouse's web site here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

What Bush did say was:

"Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate.   They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are underway.   This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place.   And our security depends on getting this kind of information.   To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America, and on the battlefields around the world."

and

"these are enemy combatants, who were waging war on our nation. We have a right under the laws of war, and we have an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them from rejoining the battle.   Most of the enemy combatants we capture are held in Afghanistan or in Iraq, where they're questioned by our military personnel ... In some cases, we determine that individuals we have captured pose a significant threat, or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.   Many are al Qaida operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save American lives.   In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly [sic], questioned by experts, and -- when appropriate -- prosecuted for terrorist acts."

Some of these individuals are taken to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ... In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency ... Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged.   Doing so would provide our enemies with information they could use to take retribution against our allies and harm our country.

After these words, Bush goes on to detail the detention of one Abu Zubaydah who he describes as having "received training on how to resist interrogation" so the CIA began a series of "alternative procedures" which "comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations."   He then goes on to describe a sequence of events in which Zubaydah led to 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his accomplice Ramzi bin al Shibh, as well as other operatives who were hatching yet another plot.   Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was questioned using the same procedures and the information gleaned from this questioning continued to topple a line of dominoes.   Bush spoke of some of the plots which had been halted as a direct result of the CIA's questioning.   He then goes on to say:

"This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers; they've determined it complied with our laws ... A small number of key leaders from both political parties on Capitol Hill were briefed about this program ... I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture.   It's against our laws, and it's against our values.   I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it."

Bush then goes on to discuss the conduct of military trials and his desire for Congressional act specifically authorizing it.   That's the point of the speech.   He desired military tribunals.   The Supreme Court said he couldn't have them unless congress authorized them.   He wants that authority.

AIM's Cliff Kincaid is offended by what he sees as faulty reporting by the MSM that Bush has admitted to the creation and maintenance of a system of secret prisons.   Because the President didn't use the term, reporters have no business interpreting his words to report that he did.   I guess I do and don't agree with Kincaid.   And I'm not sure it really matters.

First off, the term "prison" conjures up meanings to me of a fairly large place where there are, say, more than 100 people being held.   The plural of the term or use of "system" in the context of "prison" connotes perhaps thousands of "prisoners."   The MSM's subsequent use of the term "gulag" quite obviously is meant to draw parallels between the Bush administration's practices and those of despotic totalitarian regimes who imprison their political opponents.   So while I suppose I disagree with Kincaid's denial of some sort of admission by Bush, I do agree with him regarding how the speech and its "interpretation" by the media has morphed into a question of morality.

A few people held and systematically questioned doesn't quite rise to the level of a prison system in my book.   Sure, if you capture someone, he's your prisoner.   If you capture two and hold them, you have prisoners and the place you hold them becomes a "prison."   Capture three and hold them, and I suppose you have yourself a prison system.   But using that same logic and the mandatory placement of homeless people into a shelter during a blizzard amounts to a prison system for the homeless!   What we do with dangerous people will always be considered a prison system by some but it isn't necessarily reasonable journalistic interpretation to refer to one hundred battlefield detainees held in one or several places as a "covert prison system" or an example of a "gulag."

Just what exactly are we to do when we are attacked by a group whose origins (place from which they launched), planning and training take place in a rogue state in a country like Afghanistan?   I suppose we attack the place militarily.   There doesn't seem to be another option.   The action is necessarily military - it is war.   It isn't criminal investigation and prosecution, no matter how you slice it.

What do we do when our military captures members of the large ring who assisted the attack or would assist future attacks?   There are a limited number of options.   Our laws are not sufficient to deal with accomplices of murder who plan future murders outside our territorial boundaries.   Our options do not include bringing them back to our country for criminal prosecution when we don't have a formal extradition treaty with the country, in fact don't even have diplomatic relations and don't have evidence of their guilt in the sense of evidence which is admissible in a US criminal court.   It isn't merely difficult to prosecute future crimes, it becomes impossible when the planners are located in a country like Afghanistan.

Also, they've declared war on us for purposes of bringing our system down.   They haven't planned a system organized crimes in order to benefit themselves.   Their intent makes it war.   And so do their and our actions.   This isn't a criminal justice issue.   It is a war decision.   Our options are to free them like some bizarre paintball game or hold them, perhaps even, gasp, interrogate them.   It is patently obvious that we won't set all these people free.   After all, these are experts not only at killing American citizens but also destabilizing governments and setting up new ones from which to launch future attacks.   There aim is to engage in war with the US and others.   This is war, not crime.   That's why Bush uses the term "war" on terror.   That's why it is inappropriate for the media to refer to "prison systems."

So why does the media engage in this sort of interpretation?   Is it roughly akin to what Middle Eastern media did by quoting the Pope outside the appropriate context which would convey his meaning?   Yes and no.

What the media accomplishes by inflaming the American public and the world at large is to hinder the Bush administration.   They want to not only portray it as a failure but also prevent any meaningful successes.   They want to handcuff the administration by inflaming its allies like the Europeans who go berserk every time there are reports of a "clandestine US prison torture system" possibly within their own borders.   But in so doing, the media is also going to make the next Democrat administration wear the same handcuffs.

They are not insuring the failure of the Bush administration.   They are insuring the failure of any American administration.   That's what bugs me to my core.   That's why I have felt it necessary to write so many words on the subject.   The news media exists because of the establishment of a system of government.   They are now working to aid the enemies of that system.   They are working to bring down the system.   Their's are the acts of a suicidal institution.   Their suicide unfortunately will cost many lives, possibly yours and mine.

Lieberman is crushing Ned Lamont in the polls.   With the momentum Lieberman is building, this could be the biggest landslide in recent memory.

The AP is taking a problem before the public.   It seems that one of their locally-hired Iraqi photo journalists has been held for five months by the US.   They see this as evidence of wrongdoing by the US military, citing "an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide - 13,000 of them in Iraq.   They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom."   The photographer in question has some unusual ability to photograph insurgents and arrive at the scene of insurgent attacks before everyone else but the AP sees this as merely good journalism.   Before this opportunity came about, the man was not a journalist.   He was a shopkeeper.   And he was "captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq."   Later in the piece, the AP tries to invoke the military's position as guilt by association.   In this case, however, one should remember that members of al-Qaida don't generally tolerate anyone around them who is not an associate.   Here, association refutes innocence.   If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Some more reading for you (this time a well-reasoned analysis of the Pope's remarks and Muslim reaction):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2362630,00.html

and on Islam in general (and why liberals have it wrong):

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Here's a little Monday morning global cooling reading for your environmental pleasure:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=9e919563-e44b-4ca2-9706-8af9cf743c95

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100?DCMP=NLC-ezine&nsref=mg19125691.100

I often complain that nobody I know is ever a part of the frequent "independent" polling results which make there way to the front pages of the nation's newspapers.   That changed today as my wife was polled by one of the larger organizations.   But the nature of the line of questions is so far afield from anything we could have anticipated, I no longer have faith in the results of any political poll.

It began innocuously enough.   I'll cut down some of the Qs and As for the purpose of brevity and while some may seem ridiculous, that is the jist of the questions.   At one point, my wife was forced to ask, are you looking for my opinion or trying to shape it.   The answer was something along the lines of, "we are just interested in giving you the truth and gauging your replies once you know the truth.   My wife said, "and of course, what you are telling me is right and anything else would necessarily be wrong?"   There was no reply, just an awkward silence.

"Are you a Rep. or Dem."   Neither.   "Do you tend toward the Rep. or Dem. side?"   Rep.   "Would you describe yourself as tending to liberal, moderate, or conservative points of view?"   Conservative.   "Do you plan to vote in the upcoming election?"   I will without question vote in this election.   Do you plan to vote for the Rep. or Dem. candidate?   Republican.

"Would you say you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion regarding the Dem. incumbent?"   Extremely unfavorable.   The Repub challenger?   Generally favorable.

"If you knew the Rep. candidate received money from tobacco companies whose business is killing millions of our children, would that influence your opinion?"   Not at all.   "If you knew the Rep. candidate is funded by large corporations would that change your opinion?"   No.   "If you knew the Rep. candidate owned a large amount of stock in oil companies and supports offshore drilling, would this influence your opinion?"   No.

"Given that the Rep. candidate will continue support of our extremely unpopular President, George Bush, and the Dem. candidate will work to bring our boys home and overturn the Rep. mononpoly of our country's government, does that influence your opinion about for whom you will vote?"   No.

At one point in the extremely long poll, it appeared to my wife that the caller was trying to get her to hang up so her opinions did not need to be tallied.   My wife told her she understood that was what she was doing and that she had all day to answer these questions.   The poll ended about five minutes later.

I think you get my point in telling you this.   There is no such thing as a public opinion poll any longer.   All that exists is an organized effort to convince people of one particular point of view.   As such, these things should be ignored.   If you've made up your mind about something and subsequently learn that a scientifically conducted poll says your opinion is wrong, rather than questioning your opinion, you should question the poll.   Opinion polls are fabricated.   They are not a measurement of public opinion.

Reuters reports Polar bears drown, islands appear in Arctic thaw.   One minor inconvenience, the polar bear drownings were pure speculation - no autopsy was conducted.   The claim of a "global warming victim" is bolstered by reports of a scientist who said, on a trip this summer "We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard -- one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted."   Reuters reports the scientist said "the bears had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice.   The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice where they find it easiest to hunt seals."

The bear appeared to be dead?   Another appeared exhausted?   the bears who were apparently dead and / or exhausted apparently had been stranded by melting ice?

Heck, this isn't even an observation!   It is a speculation!   And the entire notion of the artic ice even melting is questionable.

Follow-Up Posting

Mystery solved.   An Arctic ice seal was found at Wrightsville Beach, NC.   It is apparent to me that the seal swam to NC.   It appears the two polar bears were trying to hunt down this meal of a seal and may have died trying!

Muslims are out of their minds with rage and anger regarding something
Pope Benedict XVI said.   He said, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."   Muslims throughout the world are condemning Benedict's remarks as either "the result of pitiful ignorance about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion."   One secular Muslim leader said of Benedict, "He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages.   He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world."   a Muslim cleric said, "We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him to offer a personal apology ... to Muslims for this false reading of Islam."   Maybe you agree with thess assessments.   But you missed a teensy-weensy part of the context.   Benedict was quoting from a historical account of a conversation between a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor and a Persian scholar.   How are non-Muslims supposed to live at peace with a group of people who cannot distinguish between quotations from a historical reading and one's own original thoughts and words?   With almost every passing day, Muslims demonstrate an almost complete lack of any ability to get along with non-Muslims.

They joke about the deliberate killing of 12 million people. nbsp; They dance in the streets when a few young, stupid men fly planes filled with innocent civilians into buildings containing more innocent civilians in order to carry out a military objective.   They applaud the violation of a sovereign nation's territory for the purpose of kidnapping a couple of soldiers and then complain when that sovereign nation invades the country which allows tens of thousands of terrorists to harbor large weapons aimed at civilians.   They complain that the secular, freedom-of-religion loving west is interested in conducting "Crusades" when that phrase seldom if ever is heard in the west outside of a history class.   They applaud nations which harbor terrorists who mean to bring down the economies of the west while they themselves live off the wealth generated by selling natural resources to those economies.   They cover up their women because they believe it is immoral for a woman to be seen publicly by men, then fail to prosecute men who rape women or those who kill their daughters for the shame they brought on the family by being raped.   They claim the west is the devil and then allow, as a normal everyday custom, mind you, families to murder women for being less than faithful BEFORE they are committed in marriage.   They live in King, Prince and Dictator dominated societies in which the wealthiest achieve rights by birth rather than accomplishment and live in historically unprecedented splendor while failing to provide adequately for the poor and then condemn the west for living too well.   Their natural resource wealth is spent mostly to build and sustain huge, modern, unnecessary armies while they condemn the west for being too militaristic.

Is there any way in which some sort of peace and harmony can be achieved between our societies?   I sincerely doubt it.

New Jersey Democrat Candidate for US Senate and current officeholder, Robert Menendez, is not merely challenged ethically, he is also losing his race to hold onto a Democrat seat.   The legal deadline for changing candidates is fast approaching.   The question is will the Dem.s pull up stakes and replace the candidate now while it is still within the letter of the law or will they show that the state completely belongs to them and again defy the law by working the courts to get a candidate in after the legal deadline?   Republicans are challenging Democrats to observe the law they enacted!

Here is a nice editorial by George Will for all the Wal-Mart Bashers!

A judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein has declared in open court that Saddam was not a dictator.   Yes, and Bill Clinton to not have sex with THAT woman, Miss Lewinsky!   It all depends on how you define your terms.   Let's turn to Wikipedia.

According to the online free encyclopedia to everything, a Dictator in modern times is someone who "holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly."   Let's see, Saddam created a government made up almost exclusively of persons from his home town, many of which were related to him.   Every whim of the man was carried out as law.   His sons were permitted to go out into the world, find lovely young ladies and bring them into their chambers as sex slaves.   He killed anyone who disagreed with him.   He created secret military units within secret military units in order to keep watch on his many possible enemies.

I'd say the man was a dictator under any possible definition of the term.   That would make this judge biased beyond any reasonable degree of interpretation.   The US must require the Iraqi government to pull him from the case.

Just how many countries has the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, under chief Mohamed ElBaradei, prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons in accordance with the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty?   One, Iraq.   Today ElBaradei's agency is calling a US report on Iran's nuclear work "outrageous and dishonest."   They say several claims by the US are factually incorrect and the agency is probably right.   But is the US making these false claims because it has an ulterior motive or because the agency under ElBaradei has been an abject failure in accomplishing its sole mission?

The letter to the US government containing the complaint was mysteriously obtained by Reuters.   It notes that although the agency has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment.   Why would the Iranians attempt to conceal enrichment activities?   Hmmmmm?

The IAEA's letter attempts to draw parallels between the current situation in Iran and clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the Iraq war over findings about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false.   Yet, what we now know for sure is Saddam did, in fact, want to develop a nuclear weapon and was definitely concealing certain activities from inspectors.   Yes, some of what was said about Iraq before the war was wrong.   But that doesn't mean the IAEA was being successful at preventing Iraq from possessing the bomb.   If we are now deeply concerned about Iran developing a weapon and believe the IAEA incompetent, that opens the door for misconceptions and errors in judgment.

If the IAEA would simply do its job, this wouldn't happen.   If they wanted to establish integrity and honesty, they could start by not leaking every communication critical of the current administration to the press.

I have a prediction to make about the Earth's climate.   Actually my prediction is about how the Earth's climate will be portrayed over the next several years in order to further the environmentalists' agenda.   My prediction is they will resort to terrorism, information terrorism.

Terrorism never tries a full-blown, all-out assault.   Rather it tries to alter behavior by a long, never-ending series of small but spectacular cuts which taken as a whole would not amount to much but which gain so much attention that they seem larger than they are.   The Islamic fascists understand the technique better than any group.   They kill people in ordinary life and create the image that it isn't safe to walk around.   The animal rights crowd has begun to adopt the technique.   Can environmentalists be far behind?

Maybe it isn't fair to say that only the animal rights crowd has adopted the approach of information terrorism.   I think perhaps the media in particular and liberals in general understand the technique well.   This is why long discredited means of dealing with societal problems continue to remain in the public debate.   Universal healthcare doesn't work particularly well wherever it has been tried.   Welfare as a system to combat poverty has been clearly demonstrated to backfire.   Price controls of large, important commodities always cause prices to rise.   Tax cuts raise tax revenue while spurring economic activity - tax increases to fund more programs always cause tax collections to fall and economic activity to crumble.   Centralized planning produces less.   Yet these and other liberal doctrine approaches to solving societal issues continue to be discussed, particularly by liberals, as if they might actually work.   And ordinary people forget these programs' track records of failure because the media practices information terrorism.

The old mantra of "if it bleeds, it leads" has been replaced with a new one of "any bad news makes good news" particularly if the bad news creates an air of bad problems getting worse.   In order to accomplish this series of cuts, the newsies report on out-of-work people whenever times are good.   Bread lines stretching around the block in Ohio make great news briefs when conservatives are in power and the unemployment rate approaches historical lows.   If we dare to run on our radio or TV sets and tune to network news stations, we are subjected to numerous tiny cuts, all intended to create an image of a terrible human existence which is on a nearly irreversible downward spiral.   There is some hope of reversal but only if we listen to smart, progressive thinkers like Hillary Rodham Rodham Clinton Clinton.   Otherwise things will get worse until they are unbearable.

The "sky-is-falling" crowd is beginning to realize that the way toward power is not the hit-em-in-the-face, frontal assault approach of Algore's rockumentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."   Too many people were caught laughing about global warming issues following that blunder.   But when the average walk around human being is regularly inundated with minor commentary forming a cohesive whole, that's a different matter altogether.   Never mind what the sum total of the cuts would be if piled together into a single rational argument like Al tried.   That pins one down far too easily.   It is a simple matter for experts to pick apart a piece containing so many factual errors.

The way to get the American people off their collective duffs and out to the polls to vote for lib.s is to make them uneasy.   Your typical person does not understand such phrases as "solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction."   But they do appear to believe with unquestioning devotion a well-respected Journalist who stands before them and announces that a real bona fide scientific study "confirms that solar variation is not responsible for global warming."   The Journalist never reports the dissenting views on the issue, but rather quickly moves on to reports of flooding in India followed by a famine or drought in an African nation.   Then there is something about a new hurricane forming in the Atlantic.   Moving on, President Bush today vetoed legislation funding the replacement of nuclear power plants with windmills.   Biologists in Australia worry about the extinction of a species of maggot-like worm which only exists on some solitary mound of dirt in the Outback which is being threatened by the extinction of some newly discovered plant species on which it feeds.   The plant species is threatened by the mutation of another insect in response to higher local temperatures the past two summers.

The events are not linked per se.   They are provided because they are newsworthy.   It is left to the imagination of the listener to link them up while they concentrate on getting their company's financials out and don't pay conscious attention to the news they just heard.   Later that day somebody will report on the possibility of global warming causing drought in Africa.   Still later someone may report that global warming may result in more intense seasonal monsoons in India.   The next morning Katie Couric will report how the sun has been proven not to contribute to global warming while this person dresses for work.

Sometime later this victim of information terrorism will be at a holiday party and engaging in some pleasant discussion with a group of co-workers when somebody will say something about global warming being a fraud.   Our news-inspired "expert" will laugh at the theory proposed by this person claiming the sun as culprit.   He'll say, "That theory has long been discredited.   The sun isn't doing it.   Don't you read the news?   You should.   I've read quite a lot about it.   Solar activity has not varied over the past 2,000 years but the temperature is up.   Read something before you speak about such an important issue."   And everyone around this would-be "environmental expert" will leave that party thoroughly convinced that global warming is real and the sun has absolutely been ruled out as a culprit.   They won't have to read anything about it.   They heard it from an "expert."   And they will repeat it at their neighborhood and family holiday gatherings.   And so on and so on.

This is the method of information terrorism.   It's perpetrators are newsies like David Gregory, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and all the other "Journalists" from whom most of us get our deep news coverage.   Liberals are participants.   Most of us are helpless against the onslaught.   It is far more effective than a frontal assault.   And this is what we can expect in the future.

Insurers have lowered their forecasts of hurricane activity for the remainder of this year.   Humans are notoriously bad at predicting weather 5 days out, let alone larger climatological phenomenon.   When you read the forecast predicting that it will rain next Saturday, you do not alter your plans because you know the prediction is probably wrong.   Instead, you almost always assume the opposite of the predicted weather.   If you make plans for next weekend based on the forecast of a beautiful day, you can pretty much count on a monsoon.   So, now, when the prognosticators say hurricane activity will be lower for the remainder of the season, it is time to run out and immediately purchase batteries, bottled water, a battery powered radio, flashlights, etc.   The rest of this hurricane season is likely to be horrendous.   When the weather forecasters claim we're in for any easy time, it is time to be concerned, very concerned.

Liberal mouthpiece, the Associated Press, is scurrying to grasp victory out of the mouth of defeat.   The AP claims "In the latest test of the country's politics of polarization, the middle ground held on."   That's how they describe RI Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee's primary win.   AP notes that Chaffee "was the only Republican to vote against the resolution to use force against Iraq and he opposed the president's tax cuts.   Chafee did not even vote for Bush in 2004."   So his victory must indicate that the nation's moderates are "alive and kicking."

There is however a little problem with this read.   As the AP notes, Bush supported his primary candidacy.   In fact, Laura Bush and the "GOP establishment" actually campaigned for Chafee.   His victory can hardly be described as one for the left-leaning, even among Republicans.

The AP article claiming a win for moderates goes on to discuss other incumbents who had difficulty in their primary races.   Two suffered as a result of their actions while in office.   Another was moderate Democrat Joe Lieberman who lost to favorite of the far left, Ned Lamont.   Is that indicative of a swing to the middle for Democrats?   or is it only Republicans who can finally see reason and move towards the middle?

The bottom line in all this is that the crystal ball shows only clouds and murk ahead.   We can't glean anything from the primary races or polls so far unless it is a general dissatisfaction with incumbents, and it's a weak trend at that.

The WSJ (subscription required) reports today the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is calling for e return to basics.   That means drilling on such things as multiplication tables.   That means and end to "creative" mathematical solving like using "estimation" to figure an answer to 500 divided by five.   Can we all issue a collective "no, duh?"

I believe I have written long and frequently about this very issue.   The way to free the imagination to solve higher mathematical problems is to free one's intellect by making the solution to easier ones automatic.   12 times 12 equals 144 must be automatic, not the result of 10 times 12 plus s times 12.   You don't need to be able to explain how you solved 6 times 6 when the very phrase immediately conjures up 36 without any conscious thought.

When I learned what the overthinking liberals had devised for our kids' math study, I dug into my pocket and put my kids through supplemental mathematical training which stressed drilling over the idiotic approach.   My kids will be OK when all the textbooks are revised to reflect a more rational and realistic approach to math.   But, what about the rest of the nation's kids who didn't choose to pay for Kumon study?   They are totally screwed!

Brad Pitt apparently was quoted in the latest issue of Esquire magazine as saying...

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

Someone needs to explain to Brad, that everyone in this country is already legally able to marry, as long as it is with someone of the opposite sex.

But I presume that's not what he's talking about. The article from the Associated Press didn't really explain what he was talking about, though I guess it was about gay marriage. But be careful about what you wish for!

If you can rationalize that two men who want to marry should be free to do so, then why not other forms of "marriage"? Why not polygamy? Why not siblings? I mean, if it's all consentual and all are happy, who's to judge what is right and wrong?

The problem is this...

Marriage is a personal choice. It's part of our personal lives. The government has no place in dictating what we do with our personal lives. That goes for marriage too. There should be NO laws regulating marriage. That means there should be no laws against gay marriage, and no laws permitting gay marriage. It should be left undefined.

But I'm also someone who believes in States' Rights. If the people of the State of California decide they want to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, which they did, then let it be. Let some states decide to permit it, and let others decide not to.

Isn't that the ultimate expression of Freedom? When you allow groups of people to have the freedom to create the society they want, and respect their rights to do so, isn't that an expression of Freedom?

If Brad Pitt can condemn a State for not permitting gay marriage, then someone like Pat Robertson can also condemn a State for allowing it. There's no right and wrong when it comes to issues of morality.

The best we can do is respect States' Rights.

Conservatives, watch, listen and learn from the Democrat attack on ABC's scheduled airing of the production, "The Path to 9/11."   If they succeed in getting the thing substantially altered or even cancelled, take careful notes of the methods employed.   We should be quick to use the same techniques every single time a factually imprecise drama which portrays consewrvatives in any inaccurate way is aired in the future.   That's not to say Clinton is being portrayed inaccurately - I don't know that.   But from this point forwards, we should attack via any means possible, any work, be it of fiction or any other genre, which portray us in less than a flattering manner.

Pardon me but isn't it time to pardon I. Scooter Libby?   Does any man actually go by the name of "Scooter?"   Isn't that just a fairy tale name?   Can you really use it outside the yacht club?   What about "I. Scooter?"   Is that too much like I. Robot?   Why wouldn't a person just use "I." so he could speak about himself in the first and third person simulataneously and screw around with people's heads by always using the wrong pronoun?

All that aside, isn't it time we freed Libby?   We're all (including the libbies) convinced that there was no crime in the Valerie Plame / Joe Wilson saga.   Most reports which have come out in modern times acknowledge that Wilson must have been a partisan hack or a complete incompetent since Saddam's nuke deputies did in fact visit Nigeria to acquire yellowcake and that wasn't just something on which to put Saddam's copious birthday candles.   And most of what I've read suggests it was high time for Plame to leave the CIA.   So, what gives?   Let's get on with it.

My guess is Bush will pardon the man after the election or right before he leaves office.   Any takers for this pinky bet?

There's still a drug problem in America!   Illicit drug abuse is up in certain demographic categories.   No, it isn't your kids and their peers at school.   Drug use among that age category is falling rapidly.   It's those sixties kids again.   Drug use among 50 - 59 year olds continues to grow.   Maybe that's why kids aren't using drugs quite as much.   They can see how stupid their parents and grandparents behave when they tune out and turn on.

Reuters reports France "rejects the 'war on terror'" because "Against terrorism, what's needed is ... , as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners.   Reuters pointed out that remarks made by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin "underlined the longstanding differences between Paris and Washington."   The report then went on to discuss President Jacques Chirac's remarks, within the same context, about how France was committed to "funding continuing research and development into nuclear weapons technology" because "nuclear dissuasion guarantees our vital interests."   In other words, France considers its nuclear arsenal to be a major part of its defense against terrorism.   So who is more insane, the US which tries to flush out terrorists abroad, especially in rogue nations, or the French who consider the use of nuclear arms a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism?

Harvard University is providing a platform for radical Islamic fundamentalism on the eve of the fifth anniversary of September 11 when it hosts former Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, to speak about how "U.S. foreign policy triggers terrorism and violence in the world."   That's right, before there was such a thing as U.S. foreign policy, there was no violence in the world.   And terrorism is mostly aimed at changing foreign policy.   It has nothing to do with murdering every Jew and non-Muslim on the face of the Earth by using a cowardly tactic because your people and countries don't have the means or will to fight conventional wars.   Harvard wondered, "Do we listen to those that we disagree with, and vigorously challenge them, or do we close our ears completely?"   Yes we grant all our enemies keys to the one tactic which will eventually cause our defeat, endless debate.   So when is Harvard going to fill their lecture circuit with conservative talkers in order to vigorously challenge them?

Last night Jay Leno made a joke about the Iranian President's call for the removal of liberals from the country's universities.   Leno said, finally we have found a man for Ann Coulter!   Ha ha ha ha ha!   So funny!   But Leno doesn't get the truth behind the joke.   Ahmadinejad knew exactly what images he would evoke internationally when he called for a return to student activism and a purging of liberals from his country's universities.   That's how closely he watches us.

What Leno and most of the simple-minded liberals fail to grasp is conservatives don't simply want "all liberals" removed from America's universities.   What they want is radical leftists who teach revised history as part of the government funded curriculum removed.   They wouldn't mind a split between left and right teaching which fairly portrays both sides or roughly represents the thinking of the country (split about 50-50).   What offends conservatives, and for that matter moderates, is this shoving down the throat of long discredited leftist teachings.   Most conservatives were forced to sit through classes and regurgitate complete fabrications for the purpose of grades.   Now we are finally sick of it enough to put a stop to it.

The extremes of left and right thinking are each an imposed psychological dictatorship.   We have dwelled under the intellectual dictatorship of the left for more than half a century.   We want it stopped.   But we are unwilling to permit a psycholoogical dictatorship of the right in order to remove it.   Ahmadinejad promotes an intellectual dictatorship of the right.   Ann Coulter does not.

It's only OK to revise or embellish history when it harms Republicans or conservatives.   It matters not which genre is chosen.   When the right is hammered, it is OK to use fictitious documents to support a theory which is otherwise unproven because the faked documents portray what the Journalist FEELS is true.   But if the left is so much as questioned, it is unacceptable to use a dramatic portrayal which never even purports to constitute a documentary.   It doesn't matter that the dramatic portrayal makes use of the findings of a bipartisan commission nor that one member of the commission oversaw the portrayal's authenticity.   No poetic license at all is permitted when the left is attacked.   After all, the left owns all art, don't they?   And if the right is also hammered in the drama, the only items which need fixing are the parts which hammer at the left because, while they do portray the general facts, they are somewhat imprecise.   It doesn't matter that the drama contains composite characters, events intended to shorten the script and keep the viewers attention.   If you're going to portray a leftist politician in other than a heroic manner, you must be 100%, absolutely accurate with total precision.   Maybe that's why derogatory documentaries, news reports, and other media usually attack only conservatives.

This morning was cool and crisp in the NYC metro area.   It is a little warmer than it was September 11, 2001 but still sort of reminds me of that day.   It seems appropriate that Reuters took a look at Cantor Fitzgerald's CEO five years after the fact.

As much as your average citizen of the world averted their eyes when the images of people jumping off the World Trace Center towers were shown on every TV channel, some actually enjoyed the images.   They were rather inspirational to certain members of al-Qaida.   The AP reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed directed his operatives to attack tall buildings in the U.S. "because they were too tall for victims to jump out of, ensuring they would die by smoke inhalation."   I guess the AP forgets that the WTC was too tall to jump out of.   In fact, any building over, say three stories tall, is too tall to jump out of.   But your average ordinary 5 - 10 story building does not provide the dramatic TV footage the WTC did.   Let's not forget that the objective of the terrorist is to instill terror.   If he can enlist the local media to accomplish that goal, so much the better.   Whereas fires in small buildings are plentiful, the images of desperate souls leaping from tens of stories up are not.   The AP should not kid themselves into believing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was after death by smoke inhalation.

Democrats in the Senate want to conduct a vote over confidence/no confidence for Defense secretary Rumsfeld.   Republicans are blocking that vote on procedural grounds because it is not germaine to the business before the Senate.   Interpret that as you wish.   In other news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged westerners to convert to Islam or face "no good fate."   OK, so he didn't say all those specific words.   What he did say was, "Those who do not respond to the invitation (to follow God's will), as we said, will have no good fate."   You can't really interpret those words in many different ways.   Ahmadinejad is a fundamentalist Muslim, like the ones who attacked us on 9-11.   When he says, "respond to the invitation (to follow God's will)" he means convert to Islam.   There's no other way to interpret his words.   In other words, he has issued an ultimatum to us.   Interpret that anyway you wish.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the guy who lost the Mexican Presidential Election last July, seems to be gaining strength, at least in that, he was able to prevent current President Vincente Fox from giving his State of the Nation speech today.

The report from the Associated Press paints a grim picture, one that sounds as if Revolution is right around the corner.

Obrador, who defied his election loss, continues to rally his supporters to defy government, and now...

Lopez Obrador has already said he won't recognize the electoral court's decision, and he plans to create a parallel government and rule from the streets.

Perhaps Americans see all this as just "ho-hum" news, being that its Mexico. But Mexico shares a very large border with us. What we don't need is a Hugo Chavez right in our backyard.

Whether or not Obrador can be compared to Hugo Chavez, perhaps we really won't know unless Obrador somehow actually takes over the country.

Consider that Hugo Chavez recently visited Syrian President Bashar Assad, and the two announced a partnership to build a new world, free of "U.S. Imperialism". Great! Now we have a supporter of Islamic Fascism partnering with a South American nation, that's ruled by a U.S. hater.

Imagine for a moment, Obrador being the ruler of Mexico, and partnering with Iran for some of their "peaceful nuclear technology".

We obviously need to help Mexico remain stable, which means to help its people gain more economic wealth and receive the basic necessities of life. It's the poor economic conditions that Mexicans suffer through why guys like Obrador have risen to power.

Perhaps I'm just worried about nothing. But if Hugo Chavez can court Islamic Fascists, then so can Obrador.

I awoke this morning thinking about a slew of political issues.   I wasn't thinking about the upcoming Congressional or other elections but rather just about things in general.   There was some sort of political discussion on the TV set my wife uses as an alarm clock.   This caused me to muse about the general age of our nation's political leadership.   So, not having anything in particular to do this morning, I set out to create a list of the leaders of the two parties including each one's age.   My findings were interesting, at least they were to me.

First off, in order to create my list, I went through several documents I found as a result of performing a search on Google using the terms "Democrat leadership" and "Republican leadership."   When that didn't easily yield more than a dozen from each party, I went through Wikipedia to add more names to the list.   Some of the names I had added were not all that familiar to me so I pared the list down by a couple.   Then I reviewed the list again in an effort to eliminate those people who I felt were not truly of national importance.   After some thought, I decided to keep the two candidates for Senator from New Jersey because, although neither has ever really been in the national spotlight much before, their race has caught national attention and is very close.   I also included Ned Lamont, Senatorial candidate from Connecticut, because his primary race was in the national spotlight and because I felt, without knowing his age off the top of my head, he probably represents the youthful side of the Democrat party.

There are names on the list below aside from the folks I discussed above who are not all that important within their respective parties but these names do tend to pop up whenever political discussions arise.   Some of the leaders I have included were probably more important a few years ago than they are today but because they have been important within their parties over the past decade or so, I left them in the mix.

There are also likely some important omissions from my list.   That is mostly because I wanted to make the two lists the same length so I went through my initial cut and removed names which don't really resonate with me.   For example, I had too many Republicans and removed NY Governor Pataki because I don't see the man as being significant on the national level.

I may have made some errors as I quickly calculated ages from birth dates.   I'm fairly notorious for doing that off the top of my head.   I did check my list twice but if you find errors, let me know and I'll correct them.   In any event, here is my list

Democrats
Barack Obama (45), Ned Lamont (52), Robert Menendez (52), John Edwards (53), Russ Feingold (53), Howard Dean (57), Al Gore (58), Hillary Clinton (58), Dennis Kucinich (59), John Corzine (59), Dick Durbin (61), John Kerry (62), Joe Biden (63), Joe Lieberman (64), Barbara Boxer (65), Harry Reid (66), Nancy Pelosi (66), Barbara Mikulski (70), Carl Levin (72), Diane Feinstein (73), John Murtha (74), Ted Kennedy (74), Charles Rangel (76), John Conyers (77), Frank Lautenberg (82), Robert Byrd (88)
Average Age = 64.6

Republicans
Thomas Kean, Jr. (37), Ken Mehlman (39), Rick Santorum (48), Condoleeza Rice (51), Jeb Bush (53), Lincoln Chaffee (53), Bill Frist (54), George Allen (54), Karl Rove (55), Haley Barbour (58), Lamar Smith (58), Tom Coburn (58), Chuck Hagel (59), Mitt Romney (59), Tom DeLay (59), George Bush (60), Rudy Giuliani (62), Newt Gingrich (63), Dennis Hastert (64), Trent Lott (64), Dick Cheney (65), Dick Armey (66), Elizabeth Dole (70), John McCain (70), Orrin Hatch (72), Arlen Specter (76)
Average Age = 58.7


What I found most interesting as a result of my analysis was not so much that Republicans were on average almost 6 years younger than Democrats, but rather that the average age of all leaders was almost 62.   That means when the next President is ending his first term, these folks will average about 70.   After the potential second term, they will be 74.

62 is the age at which folks become eligible for social security, the age at which, for most people, retirement is the chief thought.   These folks on average grew up during a time when everything was wonderful with retirement planning.   You paid off your home, saved a little, and counted on SS paying most of your living expenses.   Whatever you could put away plus the value of your home would be used to finance whatever luxuries you wanted after retirement.   Obviously a 50 year scale for reviewing the social security system is outside their normal way of thinking.   When you are 62, you don't expect to have to worry about how things will be when you are 112!

62 years old also puts people in an odd position with respect to how they view the history of the country.   A 62 year old would have been about 29 in 1973 when the US military pulled up stakes and left Vietnam.   They were generally well under age 30 when the phrase "don't trust anyone over 30" became popular.   I wonder how they feel about that today!   Their collective attitude about military action probably goes something along the lines of what Sgt. Elias, the Vietnam War movie "Platoon" character said to sum up the situation he was in, "We've been kicking other peoples asses for so long I figured it's time we got ours kicked."

My old Poli-Sci professor used to suggest to us young whipper-snappers that proper leaders in any society ought to be those folks who have seen the most action in their lives.   Youth and stupidity or ignorance often go hand-in-hand.   I tend to agree with this philosophy but I have known my share of very wise young people and extremely ignorant older people.   Age does not immediately convert to wisdom.   On the whole, you want leaders to have plenty of experience whether that be in governance, politics or the real-world.

At the same time, it would be foolish to assume that there is no bias inherent in the thinking of one's generation.   Most of the people in leadership positions who today average 62 are familiar with modern technology.   They know full well that e-mail is that messaging system their secretaries (yes, secretaries) print out and give them.   They know it as that pile of papers with poor writing and worse grammar which causes them to have to do lots of dictation for.   They also understand what "blogs" are.   Those are the things any person with an opinion uses to pretend to be a journalist.   They have heard of MySpace and know that this is some sort of web site (web sites are kind of like TV with print and pictures) that is contributing to the delinquency of minors and providing opportunities for pedophiles.   But they are far too old to even have handed in a college computer project in the form of a box of punch cards!   They aren't integrated into today's technological world.   They know portable phones are important but they don't see why anyone under the age of 21 needs one.   They are happy hip-hop (whatever that is) dominates the music scene because they are glad to see rap music disappear.   They long for the days when there was good, pure, wholesome music like Elvis or Jimi Hendrix.

The bottom line is our nation's political leadership is aging at a startling pace.   They aren't in any way, shape, or form "in touch with" the average American's technology driven lives.   Politicians do try to stay abreast of current societal events by reading news periodicals and, most importantly polls, but they aren't in touch with the pace of modern society.   They are, for the most part, unaware that, for example, the MSM is not used by anyone under the age of 30.   They don't actually know what is going on in the country unless it happens to appear in the pages on Newsweek or Time, the New York Times, Washington Post, or any of their traditional sources of information.   If you read those sources, you get a general sense that most of the US population is just plain stupid.   And that's part of the problem with today's politicians.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama