Who said the following:

"that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.   Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member.   This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.   The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home.   I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up.   Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.   The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime ... The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Geeze, them's fightin words if ever I did hear them.   They were spoken by the President of the United States.   But the year was 1998.   The President was one William Jefferson Clinton.   He spoke these words after signing H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."   The Act passed the House 360-38 and was unanimously passed in the Senate.

This Act, the law which proclaimed that it was the official policy of the United States of America to undertake regime change in Iraq through whatever means necessary was never controversial.   It was thought up, written, reviewed and passed into law in just over a month.   It is a fairly simple piece of legislation which says succinctly, "that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."   It also declares "the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals."

So can someone please explain to me one more time why it is the Bush administration and the Bush administration alone who "got us into this quagmire?"   Do we, as a nation, prefer people who talk tough to those who actually carry through on their threats?   If we do, should we not just crawl into the corner and cower when we are attacked.   We will be attacked again.   Why bother expending all that energy talking tough when we can't withstand fighting for more than a single round?

The media never paid much attention to our 38th President except to poke fun at him in one way or another.   After he left office, they seldom sought him out to voice an opinion about anything - something he probably wasn't willing to do anyways.   The only time his name ever came up was when there was something involving his wife or the pardon of Nixcn.   He was destined to be a mere blip on the political radar until ... the Woodward interview!

Ford passed away after a long and productive life.   Most of the media did what they always do when an ex-president dies.   They gave a synapsis of how he came to power and what he did that was noteworthy.   They told us over and over again that he was the only unelected P-O-T-U-S.   Then they explained that he pardoned Nixon which caused him to lose the next election to Carter.   Then they spent an inordinate amount of time discussing things related to the pardon.   That was pretty much going to be it until today when the Woodward interview surfaced.   Ford authorized it to be aired only after his death.   And, of course, aired it will be.   That's because he disagreed with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, or did he?

Ford said:

"I don't think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly, I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war.   I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer."

But that answer wouldn't have come so then what would he have done.   Sanctions were meaningless thanks to Kofi and his boys.   But Ford said something else related to the Iraq War.   he also said:

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq.   They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction.   And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

That is really the crux of the matter.   The administration should never have placed such an emphasis on weapons of mass destruction.   They could have included it in their concerns but they should't have made it The Centerpiece of the criteria justifying going to war.   The political lesson in this is never give your enemies something to hang their hat on.   Gerald Ford grasped that fact.   For that he'll be remembered.

I forgot to wish everyone a happy Kwanzaa yesterday, so here goes.   Happy made up holiday.   Happy fake pan-African cultural celebration.   Happy fabrication of the 1960s.   Happy liberal ideology intersticed with not very well hidden racism days.   And as Ann Coulter reminds us, Happy Symbionese Liberation Army Days!

Enjoy your fake holiday.

I almost couldn't believe this story made the news, let alone the AP.   But upon reflection, it makes perfect sense.   The story is entitled "Baking impacts Puget Sound" and the essence of the story is holiday baking causes levels of cinnamon and vanilla to rise in Puget Sound!   Researchers found that "cinnamon, vanilla and artificial vanilla levels rose between Nov. 14 and Dec. 9, with the biggest spike right after Thanksgiving."   Their conclusions were "When we bake and change the way we eat, it has an impact on what the environment sees.   To me it shows the connectedness."

There are a couple messages hidden within the body of this story.   The author wonders if the presence of vanilla and cinnamon might cause salmon to miss the mark as they try to return to their home streams to spawn.   "All the spices have odors associated with them, so it's interesting to ask whether they are there in sufficient concentration to smell them."   And while the levels of vanilla and cinnamon during the holidays are interesting, the rest of the year we dump other things down the drain.   For example, in another such study, "Caffeine was found in more than 160 of 216 samples in water as deep as 640 feet."   And among the other substances humans dumped into the sea are antibiotics, contraceptives, perfumes, painkillers, antidepressants, pesticides and industrial chemicals.

Yes, when we do things, it "changes the environment."   Flatulence raises methane.   When we exhale, carbon dioxide levels in our immediate area rise significantly.   When we snore while we sleep, noise pollution skyrockets.   When we sweat, humidity rises.   When we flush the toilet, drinking water plunges.   When we walk across a grassy field, hundreds of insects meet their maker.   Throwing a pebble into a pond causes tsunamis to some creatures.

Somewhere, some time, some how we have lost all sense of proportion.   We have lost the concept of degree.   That's evident in so many other aspects of our life, it is difficult to focus on any particular tree without missing the forest.   Someone uses an unfamiliar word, hundreds dig until they find a derogatory meaning and then condemn the man as a racist.   Television viewers see a questionable 5 second clip on a popular show and sue for damages because after they pondered the segment for a few days, they realize it was offensive.   Al Gore puts a stranglehold on the media in order to deliver his message that changing a few lightbulbs to save an infinitesimal amount of electrical current will save the world.

My hope for the new year is that mankind finds a way to see the forest again.   I hope we can regain a sense of degree and proportion.   My wish is we stop wasting resources for meaningless research but, more importantly, stop alarming the public with ridiculous news articles.

Hold your breath in 2007.   The bird flu, the H5N1 strain, killed millions this past year.   How many millions?   .000076 or thereabouts.   Yet the media is still filled with bird flu stories.   For example:

• Two bird flu deaths in Egypt
  
  
• Global Bird Flu Deaths To Hit 62 Million
  
  
• More avian flu cases strike humans

Among my predictions for 2007, I expect global warming will cool in terms of hot button issues in the press.   But since the world has already seen flu pandemics, they will become the hottest ticket.   It is one thing to claim the sky is falling and the world will come to an end - it won't.   But it is quite another thing to claim you may eventually die - you will.   Flu pandemics make much nicer fodder for fear-mongering since they actually do happen.

Over the past year, I've often criticized organic farming and the lies with which it has been built into a strong political movement.   But why should you take some stupid blogger's opinions as fact?   You shouldn't.   But maybe you ought to at least take note of what The Economist and a nobel prize winning environmentalist have to say.   Among the more salient points, "Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%.   Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation.   The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest."   How about this little diddy: "organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing."   Excessive plowing, of course, releases "greenhouse gases" stored in the soil.   But don't take my word for it.   Do your own research.   Start with this article.

The Associated Press reports today...

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district's decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.

If this guy thinks he's sacrificing himself for something, then let him. That's a sacrifice I'll take!

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi resigned today and will plead guilty to a felony for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayers he was employed to protect.   Hevesi used state workers as domestic servants for his "sick" wife including trips to Bloomingdale's and BJ's Wholesale Club, taking out her trash, moving furniture and watering plants!   In short, the Hevesi family had a servant on the government's payroll.   Hevesi has repaid a small percentage of the costs.   He will serve no jail time and instead pay $5,000 in fines.   Now that sounds like a good deal, doesn't it?   I mean to say Hevesi got a good deal.   I would like to be able to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars and then, if I get caught, pay back just a piece of it, then pay a little more in fines, and do no jail time.   But that's his payback for being a good egg and sticking out the election so the position could be retained by Democrats.

Q: Is ex-president Jimmy Carter anti-semitic?

A: No.   He is a hired hand.

I must be brain dead.   I never realized the degree to which Carter is financed by Arabs.

As usual this time of year, the news has instances in which some adult informed a bunch of kids that Santa Claus is a fiction.   For example, a teacher at Ladysmith junior school in Exeter, England taught her 9 and 10 year olds that Santa was a myth.   There are other examples of super-smart adults exposing this "myth" to children because they just cannot live with themselves after telling lies to the children.   They'd rather the kids realize that teacher is the one honest adult in their lives!   But just who exactly needs to be educated in this instance?

Santa Claus may in fact be a mutation or corruption but he certainly is no myth.   Everyone who has ever looked into the subject realizes there was a historical person named Nikolaos, Bishop of Myra, who lived in the fourth century in Turkey and became a saint.   He demonstrated particular compassion for the poor and children, often engaging in genuine acts of charity.   he was born to a wealthy family but is said to have given away most of his inheritance, mostly anonymously.   His deeds were so well known that, after he died, people in far off lands celebrated his life with a feast and gift giving on or around December 6 each year.   The primary mutations of Saint Nicholas have to do with 1) the name transforming into the modern day "Santa Claus" or "Father Christmas," 2) The movement in some places of the celebration to Christmas, 3) The notions that he is or was fat and jolly-looking and drove around on a sled pulled by flying reindeer.   But the celebration of his life of kindness is hardly mythical or fake.   And his generosity and kindness stemmed from his Christianity.   So, somehow it seems like not much of a stretch to celebrate him at Christmas time when we take note of the birth of Jesus Christ.

These super-smart teachers should reconsider what they actually know about "Santa Claus" and analyze their need to "disclose the truth" about him to children.   If they decide that they still simply must set the record straight, they should also disclose the myth that humans are capable of demonstrating any sort of genuine altruism, as well as the fantasy that adults are smarter than children.

New York City reported its lowest birth rate in 25 years according to the Daily News review of a vital statistics report issued by the city's department of Health and Mental Hygiene.   Some interesting factoids included in the article are total births numbered 122,725 while "there were 88,891 intended abortions last year, down about 3% from 2004."   Think of that for a moment.   New York City aborted almost as many babies as it gave birth to.   And that figure was down 3%!

According to WNBC, "the new statistics show the birth rate has dropped from 19.1 babies per 1,000 people in 1990 to 15.1 per 1,000 in 2005.   Lorna Thorpe, a deputy commissioner of the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said the drop reflected a national trend toward smaller families."   Actually, birth rates across this country have been stable since the 1990s.

Another interesting factoid, from the same report, discussed by the New York Post, life expectancy is up almost 6 months in the city.   The "city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, said new anti-tobacco measures - including the smoking ban instituted in public places in 2002 - has helped reduce the mortality rate."   Really?   3 years of quitting tobacco caused the death rate to decrease?   That's remarkable!   I thought the ban was supposed to protect folks from second-hand smoke?

This is good news.   NYC has 100,000 less troublesome, needy children.   And unproductive senior citizens are being supported by federal entitlements for an additional half a year.   Isn't that just dandy!   If we keep this up, before long New York City can become vacationland for seniors in love.   That's the object, isn't it?

In the news today is a study that estimates the HN51 "Bird flu" virus could possibly kill as many as 81 million people worldwide.

That's about 1.23% of the world's total population, based on the current population estimate of 6.56 billion.

I suppose it's another reason why we have to have secure borders. The article, linked above, says that developing countries would be worst hit. I'm sure Mexico, with its high population density, and large lower class, would be hard hit.

Also in the news today, researchers discovered the source of the measles outbreak in Ohio. It was traced to an American girl who traveled to Romania and visited an orphanage, and brought the bug home. She forgot to get an immunization first.

That goes to show that foreigners coming here could start an epidemic.

Now, if Mexico were to suffer an outbreak of HN51, and the USA had the capability of offering cures and treatments, then by all means, let's go down there and give it to them. On the other hand, letting them come here for treatment is out of the question.

In 2003, before the 9-11 Commission had a chance to review them, Sandy "The Burglar" Berger, national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, stole documents from the National Archives.   He admitted that under oath.   But what was in those documents will never be known to anyone besides Mr. Berger and anyone else with whom he may have discussed them, including possibly the great man, Clinton, himself.   There have been reports circulated by the MSM that the Commission had copies of those same documents, the archives knew exactly which documents were taken and has back-up copies of them, and Berger mistakenly took them.   All of that is rubbish.   The truth is nobody knows what he took.   He got caught and admitted to basically a minor indiscretion.   He shoved those documents either into his socks or in some other place on his person so he would not be detected.   What we know is the National Archives does not inventory nor make copies of working papers of National Security Council staff members.   For all we know those papers could have contained very specific information about the 9-11 attacks or something else extremely damaging to the Clintons.   We just don't know what was in them.   He says he needed information contained in them to brief Clinton people before they met with the Commission.   But we do know that he took originals when he could have had copies made - that would have been his prerogative.   He took them and destroyed them so nobody could ever see them.   If you have the slightest amount of distrust for government, you really have to wonder what his motivation was.   You really have to wonder what was in them.   This is no "conspiracy theory."   This is an important former government senior dude caught trying to hide information from us.   No amount of media spinning can wipe that clean.

The Whitehouse press Corps was extremely upset by the administration's failure to inform them about Laura Bush's skin cancer.   But nobody in any news media capacity has asked Hillary Clinton what's the matter with her!   If you happened to catch her on "The View" yesterday, you would not have been able to avoid raising that question.   Her eyes were puffy almost to the point of closing.   The bags under them were large and protruding.   She looked more than a little tired.   She seemed as if maybe her blood pressure was out of whack or she was fighting some sort of disease.   Her facial palor could not be covered by the large amounts of make-up and rouge she wore.   It appeared she has not been sleeping, or at least not sleeping well.   And this during an off-week, well after an overwhelming election victory.   She'll undoubtedly be engaged in more demanding work before long whether that is in pursuit of the presidency or just her normal work when the senate reconvened.   What's wrong with her now?

Illegal immigrants (they aren't merely undocumented and many do have documents) do those jobs Americans aren't willing to do.   Our economy needs them because if we didn't have them, there would be nobody to pick fruit, mow our lawns or ... slaughter our meat.   Recently, immigration police emptied out a meat-processing plant in Greeley Colorado.   The Rocky Mountain News reports, legal workers formed a line out the door to fill the newly vacated positions.   This happened during a period of extremely low unemployment.   Draw your own conclusions.

Democrats rolled to victory this past November because of how badly things are going in Iraq.   The American voter was angry at the overall situation and how things are being run.   Everyone knows things are going badly.   There's no question it's on the edge of breaking down into total civil war.   The Bush administration has bungled the job.   And we know this because .....

What do we know really about Iraq?   When and how did we learn it?   What are our sources or information?

I ask myself these questions but the only conclusion I can honestly draw is I don't know much and what little I know I get from the news - MSM and alternative - media.   So, when I read things questioning the authenticity of the news media reports like I did yesterday on Michelle Malkin's blog, it upsets me.

Yesterday Michelle Malkin covered a story in which it has been asserted the Associated Press' "source" for over 60 of its Iraq stories, Police Captain Jamil Hussein, is not real.   Let me put that a little differently so it is more understandable.   The Associated Press has quoted a source for a large chunk of its Iraq reporting.   That source has been the basis of much of their coverage of the dire situation in the country.   He has given them information concerning some events which cannot be independently verified.   In at least one case, he was quoted in reports about bombings which never took place - the buildings said to be completely destroyed were not only still standing but also completely untouched, unblemished, and exactly as they were the day before the supposed bombings took place.   The AP has named its source for these reports as Police Captain Jamil Hussein of Yarmouk.   There is no such person.

There are a lot of people out trying to locate a police Captain by that name.   They have found some possibilities including a Sergeant of that name at that location.   Aha!   He does exist.   The reports are, therefore, legitimate.   But there's a little problem with that source.   Police Sergeant Jamil Hussein of Yarmouk was previously employed by one Uday Hussein.   No news service following any reasonable standard of journalistic integrity would use reports from someone with such a vested interest without disclosing that fact.   They might say "a former Baathist party official claims ..." but they wouldn't refer to him as a local police Captain anymore than they would refer to the guy who collects garbage at the CIA as a "federal agent."

There are other people, besides Jamil Hussein, who might be the AP's source.   Maybe this single source is really a composite figure - more than one person for you liberals.   Perhaps the name is an alias.   But the AP could easily have disclosed the source as members of the police, government, or as an anonymous source.   There would have been no repercussions.   But they chose instead to name names.   The dared us to disprove them.   And now we have.

Interestingly, the New York Times and other news agencies have tried to come to the rescue of the AP.   After all, they rely on AP to give them a lot of their news coverage.   They have published all sorts of stories claiming desperation on the part of the US military and other motivations for them disputing a single witness.   They've gone back into places where attacks have been reported to corroborate Mr. Hussein's accounts.   They've done whatever they can to prove that even if the eye witness accounts were fakes, the stories were authentic.   And we're supposed to believe there isn't a media conspiracy to misinform the public?   We're supposed to believe these organization operate independent of each other and an agenda?

I was mildly perturbed when Dan Rather made his broadcast using manufactured documents and then hid his crimes and misdemeanors by claiming that even though the documents might not be authentic, the story was.   If the story is authentic, find the proof and show it to us.   That's your job.   What else are you supposed to do?   The faked photographs from Beirut which found their way into Reuters and other reports got me a little more worked up.   Even amateurs were able to quickly prove photographs were faked.   Certainly professionals could tell the difference.   Presumably Reuters knew the photographs were fakes yet they ran them.   And this was no one time event.   They used photographs by this guy for years!   This latest transgression is the last straw.   I'm left here, jaw hanging, wondering why those whose profession it is to report actual happenings find that the real events are not worth reporting.   Not only must they manufacture stories, pictures, and sources, but also their stories always point in a single direction.   And they lie about their sources even when the person's name or position has little to do with the credibility of the source.   Then, when one news agency is found to have been dishonest, the other come to its rescue.   What's wrong with that picture?

New Jersey Governor made sure to get legislation funding stem cell research signed before the holidays.   The law will provide $270 million to build a lab right away and then spend far more in years to come.   Corzine said, "We don’t want to just be part of the crowd.   We want to lead the crowd."   Of course, when a state cannot attract business interests to invest in there because tax laws are highly unfavorable, states are forced to spend money on such things.   But it is difficult to imagine making a state the cutting edge for advanced technology merely by spending a quarter billion.   And at the same time as the funding of this research was passed, legislation providing relief for the highest property taxes in the nation was placed on the back-burner because "you can't rush these things."

(Please do not write to me complaining about stem cell research on this one.   This legislation is stem cell research in the broadest sense.   It is not specifically embryonic stem cell research.   I'm not opposed to stem cell research generally.   I'm opposed to embryonic stem cell research only.   I'm an advocate for general stem cell research.   But I'm opposed to state government funding of private research which will enrich private interests.   My opposition to this funding becomes even more aggressive when the state doing the funding cannot even balance its budget during boom years, even given extremely high taxes!)

Don't miss this one.   For quite some time, conservative voices have claimed that what the enviro-whackoes are really after is the extinction of one species, the human species.   Maybe you've thought these comments some sort of typical conservative over-reaction to environmental and other liberal causes.   Well, think again.   Here's the proof.   One environmental group calls itself The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.   This is no joke.   The Group's mantra is "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health.   Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."   The group's primary focus is convincing people not to "breed."   By not reproducing, humankind will ease the suffering that these blathering idiots see all about them.

In case you think this group is not to be taken seriously, consider that liberal radio and TV talk show host Alan Colmes has given the movement's founder airtime on more than one occassion.   He's also been on MSNBC.   And if you look deeply into the group's ideological positions, they run almost completely parallel to the positions espoused by the modern environmental movement.   Coincidence?   Gaia doesn't believe in coincidence.

Good-bye, Kofi Annan.   We're sure to remember you but extremely happy to be finished with your term.   There's nothing you can say which will make us feel otherwise.   But we expect we'll see all sorts of your opinions on the evening news the same way Cigar Bill Clinton is regularly consulted as an expert on everything.   But we'll not forget the ineptness with which you did your job.   We heard you yesterday try to defend your record but we take exception to several of your comments.

In your farewell speech, you said:

"I would just like, though, to acknowledge the magnificent announcement by the Spanish Prime Minister yesterday, that Spain is donating $700 million to the effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.   This is the largest contribution yet made to the UN for this purpose by any country, and I believe it is a splendid example of international solidarity which I hope other members will follow."

Is that the very same Spain which while pledging $60 million towards tsunami relief, only managed to deliver $1 million of it in the two years since?

You also said:

"I'm particularly anxious that there be no break in our handling of the continuing crisis in Darfur."

Is that because you feel the UN, under you, has done any work worth mentioning?   Is it the hundred witness statements the UN has managed to collect or the 50 plus suspects against whom the UN hopes to bring charges for the murder of hundreds of thousands and uprooting of more than two million?   Or are you proud of being called a handmaiden of genocide including Darfur, Rwanda and Bosnia?   Why were you not able to do more in a country no bigger than France with a population smaller than New Jersey?   Was it your interest in not stopping the Muslim death squads from cleansing the country?

Regarding the Middle East you suggested:

"I think we should be concerned about all crises, but I have indicated that one crisis that has impact well beyond its borders on people far away from the conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian issue.   And I am encouraged that recently there has been a sense that we need to make a renewed attempt to resolve that issue.   But that would also require that one works with the Palestinians to establish unity amongst themselves, and then proceed from there.   I think on the work of the Alliance of Civilizations, one thing that came through very clearly is that in some of the conflicts we are seeing, and believing that it is religion which is at the basis, not necessarily so.   Most of it is political, political policies and differences which pushes people sometimes to take the law into their own hands and go in another direction.   The issue is not the faith.   Yes, in some situations the faithful behave very badly towards each other, but the basis of most of these conflicts is political."

Are you not on the same planet with the rest of us?   The issue is not faith?   Then why is the central argument between Muslims and Jews, the Muslims claiming they would like to drive the Jews into the sea?   Maybe you can say that the argument is an ethnic one and maybe you can say it is a genocidal wish on the part of Arabs.   But you cannot claim this is a political one and you cannot say the key to resolution is for the "Palestinians to establish unity amongst themselves" unless your final solution parallels Adolph Hitler's.   You see, Kofi, this is what has always bothered people of conscience about you.   You always come down on the wrong side of every issue.   You always seem to favor the Muslim aggressor against all others.   Why exactly is that?

As to what you see as your accomplishments, you say your biggest accomplishments were:

"I would say the work we did on human rights and the approval of the responsibility to protect by the Member States. Second, I would say that our fight for equality, our determination that any inequality between States and within States should be reduced and that in a world where you have extreme poverty and immense wealth sitting side by side, it's not sustainable.   And we came up with the Millennium Development Goals which today is our common framework for development.   I would also say that the work we've done on infectious diseases, from HIV/AIDS to the work we did with WHO on the avian flu, were important.   And of course, I've also made the United Nations a truly partnership organization, realizing from the beginning that we couldn't do everything and we had to know what we can do, what others do better, what we have to do with others.   And, I think, opening up to the private sector, foundations, universities and civil society, we have been able to bring on partners and thus expand our activities."

I suppose you will be a Socialist until the end.   You still don't recognize that "poverty and wealth sitting side by side" can't be resolved simply by bringing down the wealthy.   You have to bring up the impoverished and those ends are not often met by bringing down the rich.   You still ascribe to the mantra that government is the solution.   Your biggest frustration was not having hold of an actual government, one with the power to tax as it sees fit.

You had some other regrets which you spoke of.   These were all focused on the situation in Iraq including:

"the oil-for-food [programme], and the way it was exploited to undermine the Organization.   Yes, there was some mismanagement.   But I think when historians look at the records, they will draw the conclusion that, yes, there was mismanagement; there may have been several UN staff members who were engaged, but the scandal, if any, was in the capitals and with the 2,200 companies that made a deal with Saddam behind our backs.   Of course, I hope the historians will realize that the UN is more than oil-for-food.   The UN is the UN that coordinates tsunami [relief], the UN that deals with the Kashmir earthquake, the UN that is pushing for equality and fighting to implement the Millennium Development Goals, the UN that is fighting for human dignity and the rights of others, and all the other aspects.   That was a very special programme, the oil-for-food, we were asked to implement.   So please don't generalize from the particular."

Generalize from the particular?   The oil-for-food program was the largest criminal enterprise ever on the face of the Earth.   You presided over it.   Your relatives were enriched by it.   It was, if anything symptomatic of your entire organization rather than being one minor problem which wasn't your fault.   Your leadership caused the oil for food fiasco and ultimately led to the Iraq war.   You weren't so much victim as perpetrator.

Regarding the general criticism your regime has received, you blamed the minority of Americans, wondering

"they should ask themselves if the UN is no longer here, how do we deal with some of the issues which cross borders?   Who is going to speak out and stand up for the poor, the weak and the voiceless?   Whom are we going to turn to when you have the Lebanons?   We saw it last summer.   The UN was the only organization that could have stepped in and do what we did.   Who is going to coordinate the next tsunami?   Or the Kashmir earthquake?   Who is going to send in the troops to protect the weak and the helpless?   And who is going to feed the internally displaced in Darfur and other regions?   They just have to think sincerely and simply and look around them – but I'm not sure – that's a problem – you can't fight ideology."

The trouble is, Kofi, you never understood what the UN's mission was and is.   The UN is supposed to be the place where countries with differences come together and resolve those without reverting to armed conflict.   It was never designed as an instrument which would feed, house, clothe, and computerize the poor.   It was never designed as a vehicle which would further the interests of one people over another such as those poor displaced Palestinians who history has shown exist only as a clever ruse by which to push the Jews into the sea.   The UN was supposed to mostly resolve disputes between countries which could result in wider conflict.   It was never intended to be an African-styled dictatorship which would lay claim to every problem facing humanity.   It wasn't designed to further questionable science regarding anthropogenic greenhouse warming.   It wasn't designed to collect taxes from computer purchasers so as to provide computers to citizens of nations suffering under repressive dictators.   It was supposed to be a vehicle for diplomacy.   But under you, it tried to stick its nose into every crack and crevice.   Under you, it failed in its central mission.   Historians will be more concerned with whether the institution will be able to survive your mismanagement.   They will not be concerned with protecting your legacy.   the fact that you would make such an outrageous contention shows us exactly where the problem lies.

Good-bye Kofi.   And good riddance!

There is something going on in Iraq but it remains unclear whether that is a civil war or something else.   Maybe what we should call it is a "revolution."

Compare and contrast this story: "Iraq on brink of collapse" with this one: " Iraq's economy is starting to blossom."

The second story was put out in Newsweek's international edition and claims the reason Iraq's economy is booming is due to money pouring in from abroad.   Whatever the causes, "Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006."   You wouldn't know it from the newspaper or television reports but oil is flowing and, according to Newsweek, securityin improving in the southern oilfields so earnings could rise in the future.   Some notable developments: "Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets."   Now, that explains it.   Bush did it again.   He gave Iraqis income tax cuts!

But anyway you slice it, democracy hinges on good economic prospects.   Maybe we can pull the rabbit out of the hat on this one yet!

Contrary to what you might be thinking about me based on my previous post, below, I do not smoke pot.   Once upon a time, I did, and like Barrack Obama (unlike Bill Clinton), I did enhale it.   But I don't like it anymore so I don't smoke it.   But yesterday I saw something which might cause me to join N.O.R.M.A.L.   The article I read claimed marijuana is the top cash crop produced in the US.   Apparently total pot growth in the US amounts to $35 billion!   That dwarfs all other crops including corn, wheat and soybean.   And that's a crop grown in secrecy!!   Despite the huge amount of pot grown in this country, we are still a net importer of perhaps over $100 billion worth of weed.   If we could grow it legally, we could probably wipe out that hidden trade deficit quickly.   If total usage were anywhere near the couple hundred billion dollar mark referred to in the article and we taxed it similarly to the way we tax tobacco, the entire budget surplus would be wiped out, and then some!   It isn't as if our keeping the weed illegal is preventing use.   $200 billion total usage implies over a thousand bucks a year for every adult.   I don't spend that much on legal booze!   So, if we can't stop it, we might just as well tax the heck out of it.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

I once had trouble reconciling the theory of evolution with my religion, layman's Christianity.   I felt as if my belief in a creator was supported by a comic strip I once saw which wondered, if the Universe began with a big bang, in what did the big bang occur?   But belief in the solution to this age old conundrum fell apart recently while watching the Discovery Science Channel.   Apparently scientists believe the big bang was caused by two dimensions (I don't know which numbers - I don't know how many they're up to) rubbing against each other.   These dimensions are supposedly more like rippling lines than they are membranes which stretched and just bumped each other.   In other words, the big bang can happen again and again.   Why nobody is concerned about this, I can't say.   The big bang could happen again tomorrow and there's no way we would know about it in advance!   Those foolish evangelicals putting their faith in a creator!   The big bang could happen right now and we'd never even know about it!

As if that wasn't enough for my puny brain to worry about, I saw that US military scientists hope to eventually make use of a technology involving some sort of cloak of invisibility.   Apparently researchers in universities believe they can already create such a cloak.   I find it difficult to believe, if the media is reporting this development, that it isn't already being used by the CIA.   It is difficult to sit here and type while constantly swinging my arms around to discover if there is anyone standing behind me.

But these developments, while troubling, are not what concerns me today.   Presumably, if we can already produce a cloak of invisibility and scientists have already figured out many more dimensions than you or I know about, how can we trust anything anymore?   I'm concerned that scientists may have already figured out time travel.   But if they did, they're not even letting our Senators know about it.   I guess it's another example of the closed Bush administration!   Yesterday I read reports that Hillary Clinton announced that she would not have voted for the Iraq War "if she knew everything she knows now."   I take that as proof she is not able to travel in time, for if she were, she would already have unvoted for the Iraq War so as to bolster her presidential hopes against Barrack Hussein Obama.

But if Hillary or any other Senator were able to travel in time, what else might they do?   Would any of them travel back and give the technology to Adolph Hitler?   If they did, that could ripple through the entire Universe.   The whole premise of the TV show "The View" - that all Republicans are like Hitler, ching chong, ching chong - would be ruined.   Would Hitler have started World War II knowing that his side would lose?   And If Hitler never started WWII, would the Russians or Chinese be Communists or post-Communists today?

For that matter, what if someone let the Ottoman's know about it?   Might they have somehow managed to stay out of World War I and still be intact today?   And if that happened, would there be islamic terrorism or a Saddam Hussein to have removed from power?

Just think of the possibilities, Hillary Clinton could have gone back and shown Hitler how to travel in time so he wouldn't become such a nuisance.   But in so doing, somebody would have tipped off the Muslims and they would still be in control of most of the world today so her unvote wouldn't matter and we'd all be praying five times a day yet probably have lost any sense of 11 or 12 dimensions and no longer believe in the big bang or time travel.   It's all so circular, I can't stand it.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

Political "progressives" suffer an inordinate amount of anguish.   They look out upon the world and see nothing but inequity, injustice, and misery.   Why are so many African children starving to death?   Why are poor minorities in the US not being educated better?   Why is there so much "poverty?"   Why doesn't anyone care as much as I do about the plight of all these people living in substandard conditions?   It must be something we, as s society, are doing or not doing.   It must be something we can change.   If only everybody else were as smart and sensitive as I am, we could start to make a dent in all this misery.   If that overweight person over there would give up 1,000 calories a day, a child, perhaps two, could be saved.   If that family living in 3,000 square feet of home could make do with half, or less, some other family, maybe two, could have a reasonable home instead of that awful shack they now occupy.   They feel compelled to just do something to improve the lot of others.   Their anguish gets the better of them and they lose sight of reality.

There is a list of hot button issues "progressives" grab hold of in order to achieve their aims.   One of these is the "obesity epidemic" myth and another is the "McMansion" or "suburban sprawl" myth.   When more than one perceived inequity can be woven together to build a behavior changing argument, so much the better.   Such is the case in a story published yesterday entitled "Suburban sprawl may create heavier kids."   This story involves a study in which "using data from a national health survey, researchers found that teenagers living in sprawling suburbs were more than twice as likely to be overweight as teens in more compact urban areas."   Two issues addressed for the price of one.   Two fallacies rolled together, poorly analyzed, and illogically extrapolated to prove an invalid point.

Let's ignore the fact that this "researcher" didn't do any original work.   Let's forget that the only items of interest were A) BMI and B) living conditions.   Let's not consider that mere coexistence was the focus, that causality wasn't examined.   Let's just take the quick and dirty study and extrapolate it to change everyone's behavior!

The researchers in this "study" used data previously collected by a national health survey from a few years ago.   They couldn't be bothered doing any actual work.   They just used other information, crunched numbers and published the results.   That's what is typically called lazy.   But we'll let it slide since their motives, of course, were pure and good.

The basis of all obesity concerns in this country involve measurement of body mass index (BMI).   You know that one, don't you?   That's the gauge which compares height and weight to determine whether people are thin, just right, overweight or obese.   When that standard was used to examine professional athletes in the National Football League, the findings were an overweight rate of 97% and obesity of 56%.   That measure determined that among the overweight dudes running the gridiron were Terrell Owens and Tom Brady.   It is one thing to claim ex-Chicago Bear defensive lineman "Refrigerator" Perry is obese and quite another to say speedy T.O. is overweight.   But other "studies" using the same indicia of obesity found overweight and obese conditions in Olympic swimmers, thin baseball players, even "supermen" NBA stars like LeBron James.   Obviously the measure is flawed.   But let's ignore that.

The concern is people living in "sprawling" conditions, like your typical American suburb, just don't get enough exercise.   They use those global warming SUVs to get their chores done.   Urban dwellers - those with 1,200 or less square feet of living space - on the other hand, are forced to do more stuff everyday and that's why they aren't obese!   Let's ignore that far greater proportions of the nation's poorest citizens live in rural and urban settings.   Let's not examine the fact that those living in suburban conditions are far more likely to give academic achievement the highest priority and, therefore, fill their children's time with reading and other inside-the-home academic experiences than they are to allow them to roam the neighborhoods shooting hoops or playing manhunt.   Let's forget that these achievement-oriented suburban schools don't even provide recess any longer because they can't afford the time away from academics.

City kids may be able to graduate high school without being able to read at third grade level but the same isn't true in affluent suburbs.   I remember in college sitting next to the class valedictorian of a somewhat prestigious private inner city school.   The girl was as dumb as a stone and had great difficulty even passing our philosophy class.   She had extremely poor study habits and told me that in all her high school years she never had more than a half hour of homework.   She laughed when I told her I, attending your average suburban public school, often had to stay up until midnight just to finish the bare minimum.   I suppose she had plenty of time to play out in the streets.   I know I didn't.

If a kid goes to a public suburban school and isn't attending at least one advanced placement class, at least in my neck of the woods, that's called failure.   And if a kid's grades aren't quite up to snuff, private remediation is the norm, taking even more "play time" away from these "overweight" kids.   The other day a parent approached me about her troubled daughter.   We were at the school's annual spelling bee but this "troubled youth" was having trouble in her math classes.   I spoke for about ten minutes with the mother, telling her about the virtues of the Kumon math program which aims to put their average kid just two grades above the school grade.   The woman bought what I told her and has since enrolled her kid in the program to get her underachiever back into the fold.   Oh, and by the way, this kid is no academic slouch.   She won the spelling bee!   Now, on top of studying for the sectional spelling bee, she'll also be doing an extra fifteen minutes to half hour of mathematics each day, including weekends.

But let's pretend BMI is a valid measurement of being overweight and that my anecdotal observations are invalid - kids in the burbs get just as much play time as kids in the hood.   Even considering these points, this study did nothing to find causality.   Its findings were merely about coexistence.   The only thing it found was a higher percentage of kids in the suburbs fell into overweight and obese categories of BMI than did urban kids.   This was no controlled experiment.   No actual causality was examined.   Still, a host of illogical conclusions were drawn.

The article discussing the study claimed, among other things:

"The researchers believe the same factors may be driving the link between suburban living and teenagers' weight -- the major one being reliance on cars."

"People in cities are often forced to be active in their daily lives -- walking to stores and public transportation, carrying groceries up the stairs to their fifth-floor walk-up apartment."

"Those cars have become "de facto snack shops" for many adults and kids, with the food often being fast food. In many spread-out suburbs in the U.S., fast food is the predominant dining option."

The article went on to suggest parents make a greater effort to get their kids into sports and "a more drastic alternative is to move."   Move?   Pick up from the high academic-achieving suburbs and move into the inner city so your kids can walk to the bus or subway, graduate high school with an inferior education, yet have plenty of opportunities to walk up five flights of stairs and avoid fast food?   What rubbish is this?

We cannot formulate current national public policy on lazy number crunching studies, using old data, which find mere coexistence of conditions based upon flawed indices of weight which classify world-class athletes as obese and link obesity with too few opportunities to be inconvenienced.   I suppose if I believed everything this study suggests, I should move out of the suburbs and be content with having thin stupid children!

I'm a sports junky.   I'll watch a couple dozen NFL games in a season, even watching the dreadful broadcast of Monday Night Football on a semi-regular basis.   I don't watch hockey on TV but if I can catch a game in person, it holds my attention.   I catch about 200 televised baseball games and several minor league and other games in person each year.   I once found myself next to a field where a 10 year old little league game was going on, stayed to watch the outcome, and found myself getting emotionally involved at one point.   I watch about 100 girls high school and youth softball games in person every spring/summer.   I try to make it to several college basketball games during the winter.   I get completely immersed in March Madness, often to the point where I need professional psychological help.   I've even found myself stooping so low as to watch the paintball championships on ESPN just to have a "game" to watch.   But there is one professional sport which cannot hold my attention.   That's the game of basketball.

To me, football isn't as good as it used to be.   I imagine that within the next couple of years there may be a penalty for thinking bad thoughts about the quarterback, never mind bumping into the person who holds this particular "skill position."   My preference is to see really good defense but the NFL has a different view.   As a consequence, everything humanly possible to get the scores higher has a chance of making it into the rulebook.   But, aside from the occasional idiot like T.O., the game is still interesting to me.   T.O. thinks he is bigger than the game and apparently the league agrees.   But the T.O.s of the NFL are fairly few and far between.   The NBA, on the other hand, is completely populated by T.O.-types.

The NBA has become a league of spoiled children.   Salaries are sky-high and the team aspect of the game no longer matters as much as the stars.   The total combined score at the end of a contest is more important than anything else.   The game goes back and forth faster than any other sport with the chuckers often heaving up the ball as soon as they see daylight.   And the outcome of any given game is usually not determined until the fourth quarter with teams coming back from 20 point third quarter deficits on a regular basis.   But all of that aside, what really gets to me is the degree to which professional basketball has become thug-ket brawl.

I am still perhaps more into college basketball than any other sport.   I don't enjoy college football as much as the professional game because there are too many explosive plays.   I think perhaps the NFL is trying to emulate the play of the college game and that will eventually chase me away.   But the same imperfections which ruin my college football experience are a draw for me to watch college basketball.   I like the team nature of the game caused largely by the lack of enough really skilled players to go around.

The NBA has plenty of talent.   Many of even the best college players are forced to play out their careers in Europe and other places because they can't even make the second team on a pro basketball franchise.   I watch NBA stats occassionally for no other reason than to see if this college player or that has a shot at making it into the pros.   Often I follow one player for a number of years before he washes out of the league.   For example, I was a fan of Ron Artest before he went into the stands to fight with a fan.   After the brawl, I no longer root for the guy or check his latest stats.

If I had a team I cared about in the NBA, it would most likely be the NY Knicks.   Of course, they are the reason I am writing at all about the NBA today.   The Knicks had another bad game the other day.   They were getting buried late in the fourth quarter when somebody decided the opponent was trying to run up the score.   A "hard foul" followed and resulted in an all-out brawl.   Fights in hockey can be interesting when you consider these guys are on skates and they never seem to do much damage to each other.   In basketball, fighting is nothing more than a breakdown of the game.   The NBA needs to put an end to its current brand of thug-key brawl and try to restore the integrity of the game.   It is time the athletes realized the reason they earn these very large salaries is because the stands are filled with people who want to watch.   If they go away, the way I have gone away, the salaries will drop quickly.   Eventually the league itself will go away.

But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high as you can see.
........................
And the worms ate into his brain.

Do you get the sense the media would like to see the world as if it were some episodic television show or movie like Batman or Superman?   Maybe that's an oversimplification.   They'd also like to see the Riddler defeat Batman every now and again.   But still, they see things in terms of heroic individual adversaries who battle it out to determine the fate of the world.   The world just won't cooperate with their notions.

For example, I get the feeling Time Magazine really wanted to Christen Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "Person of the Year" but the political realities didn't work out.   Iranian presidents just don't have that much power.   The place is a Muslim theocracy, run by a council of "elders" who hold the real power.   And even Ahmadinejad's limited power is under assault.   He is tremendously unpopular right now.   And soon the man will leave the world stage and never be heard from again.   The wall of reality is just too high.   And the worms will continue to eat into Ahmadinejad's brain.   So they had to come up with someone else.

Time came up with the only alternative they could think of, aside from the likes of Kim Jong-il, YOU.   But I question the selection of "YOU" as the "person of the year."   I think it would have been more appropriate to choose "i," as in little "i," as in the internet, Al Gore's baby.   It's as if they (the MSM) are finally coming to the realization that the days of the large printing press are over.

Lots of us pajama warriors have been telling you for a long time that the days of the MSM are waning.   We don't need dozens of esteemed reporters driving out from their headquarters in company vans to question eye witnesses on air about some big happening when those witnesses themselves can quickly log onto Blogger.com and give you their version of the story.   Perhaps more to the point, when an individual user can get on the government's own site, we don't need reporters to interpret documents or give us their synapsis based on how much information they think we can digest.   I don't know about you but I'd rather read the IPCC TAR or the Iraq Surrender Study Group's report for myself.   I don't need David Gregory asking the President the "tough questions" on my behalf.   And I certainly don't need a "Journalist on the street" to give me his interpretations of what is happening in Iraq when there are real people there telling us their accounts.   If the MSM would give a more complete and accurate depiction of things, I'd have room in my life for them.   But, as it is, right now they're just another of the many bloggers and others putting forth their point of view.

So my vote for person of the year goes to "i."

While I am dead-set against the enviro-policies of the Kyoto-ites, I do think the US needs to formulate a rational energy policy - one which diminishes the importance of the Middle East and its oil reserves.   I believe I'm being realistic when I say that changing lightbulbs to the expensive, energy-saving kind is not going to do the trick.   Nor do I think building more expensive cars, which achieve the mileage levels cheap cars in the 1980s did, will save much fuel.   I do not believe building thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) or 900 foot windmills along our coast will do the trick.   Nor do I think converting millions of acres of fallow land into bio-fuel farms has a future.   I believe it is possible nuclear can play a big part of achieving independence.   I think liquid coal is part of the solution.   Rational decissions need to be made with respect to the identified oil reserves off our coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.   And I think we need to take a good look at how we can emulate the Canadians by putting technology to work extracting oil from shale in Colorado and neighboring states.   The next Congress needs to deal with this issue before any others.   If we hear them discuss AGW as if it is a problem we need to address; if they put more incentives on hybrid cars and bio-fuels; if they don't do anything to promote the rational energy alternatives, we will recognize it is business as usual in Washington and the real problems and solutions will have to wait until the next Congress, the one after that, .......

The time is fast approaching for those on the world political stage to take off those green-colored glasses.   The same can be said for the mainstream media.   Green taxes and policies are absurd, arbitrary, and often have opposite effects of their stated goals.   The media continues to be populated with green-eyed idealists who cannot see the forest for the trees.   But slowly, ever so slowly, the tide is turning from radical environmentalism to a more rational way of thinking.

The EU is set to reject green taxes which would have placed tariffs on goods from countries which have not ratified the Kyoto treaty.   That would benefit China who, while having ratified Kyoto, has done nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while putting countries that have not ratified Kyoto, yet which have reduced emissions, at a competitive disadvantage.   Obviously that would be madness.   And it likely would have violated several other treaties.   Thank goodness the EU has seen the light and realized their mistake before turning it into policy.

Hopefully the US Senate will similarly realize the folly of promoting policies which ignore facts simply to appease the green lobby.   The anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) fraud is exposed more each day.   Perhaps the globe is warming, perhaps this is just part of a bigger cycle.   And if there is nothing humans can do to change it, it would be a waste of time and effort to pursue ineffectual policies at tremendous cost in terms of time, effort and resources.

It would be too much to expect green activist to stop promoting their agenda items but one can hope the MSM would eventually come to their senses and realize they have bought a fake watch.   As the IPCC gets set to tell us that they may have overestimated not only the problem but also the causes, the MSM needs to rethink its editorial approach.   Just yesterday, the AP published a story about the shrinking glacier of Kilimanjaro noting that it and the general retreat of "every one of more than 300 large glaciers studied worldwide" is "essentially a response to post-1970 global warming."   This time the AP did not attempt to directly connect global warming to anyone's auto tailpipe.   But the implication is clear.   "Post-1970 global warming" is secret code for AGW.   The AP realizes that they can't directly refer to fossil fuel burning because the science behind the claim is melting faster than the glaciers.

Also, the article said "Even such strong evidence may not sway every climate skeptic.   Some say it's lower humidity, not higher temperatures, that is depleting Kilimanjaro's snows, for example."   Note that "climate skeptic" is not the same thing as "those denying man's impact on global climate."   The AP is beginning to recognize that such inflammatory language no longer flies.   So they continue to put forward the green agenda by creating fear - fear of global catastrophe once the glaciers melt - but they stop short of claiming humans caused the catastrophe.   This represent s a new tack by the MSM.   Instead of blaming mankind for global problems, they focus on the problem itself and hope nobody notices that the cause is not human activity.

The greens are not going away anytime soon.   Al Gore will most likely continue to push his agenda.   The media will continue to publish ridiculous stories implying that humans are parasites on the Earth.   But perhaps the greenies can be managed to a point where they are a mere nuisance like prostitution, drug abuse, or terrorism.

Comedian Rosie O'Donnell is certainly sorry.   She expressed that sorrow in the most heartfelt manner she could muster yesterday on "The View."   But there is a problem.   The problem is she expressed her sorrow days after she committed her sin.   And it took her two tries to get it right.   O'Donnell tried once to apologize but failed and was criticized.   So she reissued the more apparently heartfelt apology.

I'm convinced she is sorry but I'm not sure what exactly she is sorry for.   My best guess is she is sorry that her insensitive comments put her career at risk.   She is sorry that her comedic act endangered her beloved position on the show.   But she is hardly sorry for having mocked anyone.   If she had been, she would have immediately apologized - during the first show.   If she had been and failed to apologize appropriately, the next day she would have been more adamant about it.   The fact that she had to be told her comments were inflammatory indicates something less than full, immediate realization.   The fact that, even after hearing how upset she had made people, she still issued only a half-hearted apology shows how little real remorse she felt.

My young children often follow the same pattern when they misbehave.   It takes a few moments for them to realize that their actions have angered me at all.   Then they try to judge the degree to which I am angry and apologize at an appropriate level.   Then, when they realize their apology wasn't nearly enough, they go completely overboard.   Such is the behavior of children.   I always take the time out to explain to them that if they really felt sorry for a transgression, they wouldn't do it in the first place.   So Rosie's actions from this point forward, now that the fake overblown apology has been issued, should tell us exactly how sorry she really is.

Being a rich kid is not a crime.   But falsely accusing and prosecuting anyone, even a rich kid, most certainly is.

Isn't it time to move forward with the appropriate prosecution(s) of the Duke rape case?   To begin with, the trio of David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann should be exonerated and given their lives back.   That'll happen as soon as their attorneys move for dismissal, perhaps in the next week or so.   Judge Osmond Smith should have no other choice but to dismiss the case after DNA of five males was found in the rape kit, none of it belonging to the accused men.   But the wheels of justice should not stop turning there.   For one thing, the false accuser should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not only for lying to police about her sexual activities around the time of the supposed crime but also for falsely accusing the men.   For another, the prosecutor, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong, should similarly get what he's got coming to him.   He should be investigated not merely for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence as required by law but for maliciously prosecuting a case without evidence, also, as required by law.   He should be removed from office and disbarred but it shouldn't end there.

Our legal system acknowledges the need to never have an absolutely level playing field.   Someone always gets a slight benefit of the doubt so as to avoid miscarriages of justice.   In both civil and criminal proceedings, there are unequal burdens which require one party or another to prove something.   These slight inclines or hurdles exist so certain circumstances don't happen.   For example, a litigants pressing a suit has to prove certain things before a case even comes before a jury.   Similarly, a prosecution must succeed in obtaining an indictment before a criminal case goes to trial.   But our checks and balances don't end there.   A prosecutor must have a reasonable case and he or she must disclose that case not only to the court, but also to the defense team.   Defendants cannot be repeatedly tried for one crime.   Witnesses who have been found guilty of lying can themselves be prosecuted.   We understand that these institutions and practices exist to prevent the state from bringing false charges, imprisoning an innocent person in a never-ending trial for a crime they didn't commit, and generally becoming a burdensome law unto themselves.   They also exist to prevent individuals from accomplishing the same goal.   Our system depends on personal responsibility of all involved.   Without personal responsibility, our legal system falls apart at the seams.

In the Duke rape case, it seems as if a person has falsely accused others, the state has engaged in a malicious prosecution, and someone has become a law unto themselves.   Our system cannot withstand assaults like this for whatever the motivation.   In order to protect the system itself, something beyond mere acquittal of these innocent men needs to take place.   The accuser and Nifong must be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted for their crimes against the system.

Is it too much to ask that we drop the thin veneer of political correctness which hangs like a thin ribbon around our Christmas trees?   What I mean is, it seem like other religions feel it necessary to "compete" with Christmas in order to claim their piece of the public pie.   It is degrading for one person to see the celebration of another and believe they must celebrate something, anything, just as rigorously so as to come up to snuff.

I grew up with a slew of kids who were Jewish and none of them ever considered Hanukkah (Chanukah or however you want to spell it) as a particularly big deal.   Yes they got some gifts and in school we sang some Hanukkah songs like the dreidel song.   But nobody particularly looked forward to the holiday.   Then along came the Lubavitchers with a huge celebration in New York's Central Park.   They brought big crowds of people and some very big loudspeakers with them to prove how important the holiday was.   I had an office which overlooked the place where the giant menorot the Lubavitchers used was visible.   I remember when then didn't have this big celebration.   I remember the day when Hanukkah seemed like one of the lesser Jewish holidays.   I find it sort of embarrassing that they decided they must conduct this celebration in a loud, public manner to "compete" with Christmas.

Similarly, I'm bored with the very idea of Kwanzaa.   The thing has endured for just 50 years and only really exists in the US.   It is kind of similar to "Festivus" from the Seinfeld show which is quickly approaching its 10 year anniversary.   In other words, to me, Kwanzaa is a fabrication.   it is a secular holiday which, according to its founder "was chosen to give a Black alternative to the existing holiday (Christmas) and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society."   regardless of the thing's intent or origins, one thing is very clear.   It is not an indigenous, African celebration.   They do not celebrate it in Africa.   It's a fake, a fraud, a complete fabrication, not unlike Festivus for the rest of us.

This year at our children's schools, a Kwanzaa song was inserted into the holiday music program.   While one of my kids' friends celebrates Kwanzaa, she only does it half-heartedly, and you get the feeling it is imposed upon her by her parents, one of whom happens to be an immigrant from an African nation.   She doesn't appear to know anything about these songs nor particularly care about or for them.   They are, shall we say, rather uninspired and unremarkable.   Neither the melody nor the lyrics are worthy of being repeated by anyone.

So, I'm asking for those who currently practice Kwanzaa to ask themselves if they are really attached to it.   And perhaps more importantly, do they feel dignified running out into the streets to pretend to celebrate a made-up holiday?   And those of my friends who practice the Jewish faith, please ask yourselves if Hanukkah is really as important as it has been trumped up to seem.   I totally respect Jews and Blacks whether they engage in these practices or not.   I just think it looks foolish to try to compete with another group's holiday just because it is big and loud!

Let to their own devices, aggressive humans will eat their own young!   That's as true for the left as it is the right.   And when I see such bad behavior, I have to call it.

Recently, Alicia Colon, of the New York Sun, impeached Matt Drudge's web site, The Drudge Report in an article she wrote entitled "The Mendacity Of the Liberal Press."   She lumped Drudge together with the MSM because the site has so many links out to their stories.   She favors another news site, Lucianne.com because she thinks it a better "antidote" to the biased reporting of our liberal press.   While I agree with Alicia that Lucianne is an excellent source of balanced news reporting, I take exception to her impeachment of Drudge.   In order to disclose the truth, I feel it is necessary to show what the biased guys are reporting.   That's all Drudge does.   Drudge often contains links to stories which are embarrassing to lefties and in doing so, he often also shows how the lefty-supporters reported it.   I think he does a balanced job of things.   If Lucianne does a nice job too, so much the better.   The stable of reasonable media alternatives is hardly full.   there is room at the inn for both Drudge and Lucianne.

I wonder if there isn't some sort of conspiracy going on here.   is it simply a coincidence that both "Alicia" and "Lucianne" contain the consecutive letters "C-I-A?"   I think not!

It seems like every single day holds some more pseudo-scientific BS supporting some sort of leftist / progressive agenda item.   Today there is a story about a study which concluded vegetarians are more intelligent than those who eat meat.   Actually, the study didn't conclude that - the journalist who pieced together the story jumped through a logical fallacy to form that conclusion.

First, let's look at exactly what the study did test and conclude.   A population of 8,000 volunteers were tested for IQ at age 10.   Then at age 30, they were asked whether they were vegetarian or not.   Of those who stated they followed some sort of vegetarian diet, the average IQ at 10 was higher than those who didn't.   No differences were found between those who followed a strict vegetarian diet and the "pretend vegetarians."   "Pretend vegetarians are those who call themselves vegetarian but who do in fact eat meat - the meat of fish and chicken.   Another difference which was discovered was those who practiced veganism were lower in childhood IQ than both the remaining vegetarians and the meat-eaters.   Those who became vegetarians scored an average of 105; the eventual meat-eaters 100; and the vegans 95, again while aged 10 years old.

The author of this propaganda piece claims that perhaps "veg-rich vegetarian diet could somehow boost brain power."   The piece said, "a diet which is rich in fruit, vegetables and wholegrains may somehow boost brain power."   Yet somehow it escaped the author's attention that the IQ tests were administered before the subjects became vegetarian.

The lead researcher claimed "there could be several explanations for the findings, including intelligent people being more likely to consider both animal welfare issues and the possible health benefits of a vegetarian diet."   She also said, "Although our results suggest that children who are more intelligent may be more likely to become vegetarian as adolescents or young adults, it does not rule out the possibility that such a diet might have some beneficial effect on subsequent cognitive performance."   It certainly does not but more importantly, it doesn't even begin to indicate that such a diet does have any benefits related to intelligence.

Obviously, when you test for condition A, 20 years before condition B, it would be more than a little incorrect to conclude B leads to A.   You might be able to claim A leads to B but you have to cut out all the noise before you make any such conclusion.   To put it clearly, the study found that people who became vegetarian (or quasi-vegetarian) had tested a little higher on IQ tests administered 20 years prior.   The vegetarian diet had nothing to do with their brain development prior to the IQ test.

One possible piece of the noise which apparently did not get any consideration is the fact that those who test higher on childhood IQ tests are more likely to attend more prestigious institutions of higher learning and thereby be subjected to greater amounts of leftist propaganda concerning diet.   It matters little whether a vegetarian diet is actually better for you than eating meat, especially when the "lying" or "pretend vegetarians" scored higher on the childhood IQ tests.   But in order to prove that it is better for you, you have to control your experiment a bit more than this one did.

For centuries human beings have been pretty darn smart - most of the big scientific leaps occurred prior to this study.   yet vegetarianism, while around for perhaps thousands of years, has not been practiced widely.   In other words, historically speaking, vegetarians have not necessarily scored higher on IQ tests!   It's only in the past couple of decades that vegetarianism has gotten any widespread attention at all.   The sixties generation made it part of their mantra.   For centuries meat-eaters made intellectual contributions.   This study failed to address that.

Among the facts of human biology are those surrounding the "evolution of the brain."   Our wonderful brains require a tremendous amount of energy to develop into what they are today.   Some scientific studies have claimed that the only dietary element which was available in early human beings was Omega-3 fatty acids obtained from fish.   Omega-3s can be obtained from flaxseed oil too but studies have shown human beings have a difficult time absorbing Omega-3s from plants.   The plant was harvested by early civilizations, thousands of years ago, but mostly it was used for fabric, paint, varnish, dye, paper, fishing nets and soap.   In other words, human beings, intellectually speaking, if not made that way by God, were made intelligent at all by eating meats, the meat of fish.   There is no credible science which concludes that eating a vegetarian or "pretend vegetarian" diet will make you smarter.   Similarly, there is no credible science which concludes that following a vegan diet will make you less intelligent.   But this is the way the media will portray the results of this study.   Maybe they should eat less meat.

I hope this keeps going.   It's getting better all the time.   While I very much enjoy serious political debate, I enjoy good comedy even more!   The next democrat candidate for president, Mr. Barack Hussein Ears Obama.   The name may be more appropriate than anyone supposes.

Obama is reportedly very sensitive about his press and went so far as to speak to a New York Times columnist who made a derogatory comment about his ears.   Obama said, "I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears."   His camp was also supposed to have been upset by comme