The latest news on the 2016 Summer Olympics is that Los Angeles stands to generate $7 billion from it.

Of course, that's what it will generate. That's not the net earnings after expenses. I suspect Los Angeles will be in the red after it.

As it stands now, the freeway system around Los Angeles is so congested, even without the Olympics, and even 9 nine years away from it. The city, county, state, and federal governments may have to spend billions on infrastructure to accomodate the visitors.

LAX airport is already an insane alysum. Those of us who live here, don't go there, opting for Ontario, Orange County, Burbank, and Long Beach instead.

The city and county will no doubt send a HUGE bill to the Department of Homeland Security for hiring all the temporary law-enforcement.

Furthermore, who cares about the Olympics?

The last Olympics was a dud. No one watched it. The media kept reporting it, but it was a ratings disaster. IT WAS AN EMBARASSMENT!

The only sporting events the entire world cares about is the Superbowl and the World Series. And I'm all for letting Los Angeles host the World Series.

Labels: Olympics, Sports

Perhaps I should see news reports like this and just move on without giving it another thought.   Maybe that's how I should react to attacks against Rudy Giuliani's handling of the September 11 aftermath like Associated Press writer Larry McShane's recent work entitled "Giuliani faces questions about Sept. 11."   But I can't.

McShane should know better than this and likely does.   But because Giuliani seems to be the leading contender for president, McShane has to throw up some print which tries to criticize him.   Giuliani is on the other team after all - the AP cannot sit still while a Republican gains momentum.   But it gets under my skin that people who claim to have intelligence can engage in this garbage and still live with themselves.

I just can't believe that someone who lives in New Jersey and commutes daily to work in Manhattan, as McShane does, could possibly report on Giuliani as if he really screwed up during the tragedy.   The reporter could undoubtedly smell the stink of the WTC and its inhabitants burning from his New Jersey home in the days following the attack.   He witnessed the almost abject despair locals felt.   He also witnessed firsthand a leader who made just about everything right afterwards.   He observed a man who despite great personal loss was able to pick us all up and carry us emotionally on his back while we were overcome with despair and grief.   Still he writes this piece of junk and has no trouble getting up in the morning, taking care of business during the day and getting to sleep at night.   That says more about McShane than it does Giuliani.

McShane has written such important political pieces as "Houdini poisoned? Remains to be exhumed," "Hip-hop finally gets its foot in the door," "N.Y., N.J. swap insults over mysterious stink," many articles covering hot topics like the death of disc jockey Scott Muni, and a book or two about policemen gone wild.   He also interviewed Giuliani on the one year anniversary of Sep 11.   In that piece he said:

"after 45 fitful minutes of sleep as his city smoldered and its people shuddered, Rudolph Giuliani arose in the dark to await the sun ... he rose from the twisted steel and concrete of ground zero to become an international icon of New York's moxie in the face of terrorism ... each high was balanced by a difficult low. Giuliani buried close friends killed by the terrorists, including the firefighter husband of his pregnant personal assistant and Fire Chaplain Mychal Judge ... others have pushed for the reconstruction of the lucrative office space destroyed on Sept. 11, Giuliani believes there are other places in the city for commercial development."

Today McShane writes:

"Rudy Giuliani's White House aspirations are inescapably tied to Sept. 11, 2001 ... city firefighters and their families are renewing their attacks on him for his performance before and after the terrorist attack ... as the presidential campaign intensifies, criticisms of his 2001 performance are resurfacing ... failure to provide the World Trade Center's first responders with adequate radios, a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed ... (his) November 2001 decision to step up removal of the massive rubble pile at ground zero. The firefighters were angered when the then-mayor reduced their numbers among the group searching for remains of their lost 'brothers,' focusing instead on what they derided as a 'scoop and dump' approach ... locating the city's emergency center in 7 World Trade Center, a building that contained thousands of gallons of diesel fuel when it collapsed after the terrorist attack ... lingering ill will between Giuliani and firefighters ... a veteran political consultant, predicted the 9/11 criticisms could resonate beyond New York during the presidential campaign ... forced Giuliani to try to strike a balance to avoid the perception that he's exploiting the attacks for his own personal gain ... Bush ... invoked the attacks to portray himself as a strong and steady leader in the face of terrorism."

Larry McShane knows in his heart of hearts there is no reason to criticize Giuliani over his handling of the September 11 attacks.   He understands it because he lived it.   Yet, because he is a stooge for the liberal media, he is forced to write something completely without credence in order to further his career.   But let's look at this a little more realistically.

80% of all people completely crumble under extreme stress and anxiety.   Another 19.5% become totally ineffectual.   About one half of one percent rise to the occassion and face the problem head-on.   I know this from first hand experience.   A long time ago, a co-worker of mine named Doug Heir, former President Of The
National Spinal Cord Injury Association, dove into a swimming pool with ten lifeguards around it and broke his neck.   I was one of those guards.   We all went into the pool to assist his brother Brian, the head lifeguard, who had pulled him to safety.   Brian stood there in shallow water and asked who of the lifeguards remembered how to place someone on a backboard.   He asked the question in a way which made it clear this was no time for false bravado.   He said it's OK if you don't remember, we can't screw around this time, so if you don't remember that's OK, get out of the way.   Most guards got out of the way and one stayed to help him.   Brian rose to that challenge and later the emergency people noted how good of a job was done putting brother Doug on that backboard - it saved his life.   Douh went on to do great things with his life but Brian gets at least some of the credit because he made it all possible.   Brian was an example of a person who reacted positively when high stress and anxiety strikes.   No, that event alone would not qualify him for the presidency of the United States but he is exactly the type of person any of us would want in a leadership position because he rose to the occassion - he was one of the half percent of people capable of doing so.   That is the type of person Rudy Giuliani is.

Leaders do not always make the right decision about everything when disaster strikes.   Yet, without them, we would cover our heads with our arms and wait to be taken away by someone else.   They are the few who in the face of withering fire instruct us to take aim at those manning the enemy machine gun position, thereby saving countless lives.   They are the few who target the firehose at the proper place when others are screaming and running away in panic.   They are the ones whose deeds and words make us all rise up and face danger when we would rather succumb to it.   They inspire us.   They save us from ourselves.

It is relatively easy to keep poking and prodding and find something Giuliani did wrong in the aftermath of September 11.   It is particularly easy now when all the dust has settled and the clean-up finalized.   We've all moved on and forgotten our fear, our panic.   But Rudy was one of few who got up and did something which inspired the rest of us to realize it was OK.   He pulled us to our feet from the corner in which we cowered, told us to get to work, and made us feel responsible for fixing things.   He wouldn't let us wither in the face of seemingly withering fire.   He commanded us to charge and because we responded to that call, we are OK today.   That's exactly what we want in a president.   We want more than that too.   And Rudy brings the full package.   These nearly criminal attacks on him won't change that.   And journalists like Larry McShane should realize the only person they are hurting as a result of these types of attacks are themselves.

Labels: media bias, Rudy Giuliani

The Iranian hostages were videotaped and the tape has made its way into the media.   The tape shows all the hostages eating and one woman hostage smoking and "confessing" to the group's alleged trespass into Iranian waters.   What a crock!   Do these people (the Persians) actually think so poorly of us that they believe this confession would convince us that we were in the wrong?   Why do the Persians always act like thieves and kidnappers?   When will they release the hostages?   It was one thing when a bunch of students took hostages and quite another when a government commits this act of belligerence.

Labels: Iran

We in the US need to understand other cultures better than we do.   We mistakenly think everyone is ultimately just like us.   They aren't.   For example, Persians think nothing of lying.   They believe it is a normal behavior, especially when utilized in business or international relations.   if you enter into a discussion or negotiation with a Persian opponent and don't realize this, you're dead.   Apparently another part of the Persian international relations strategy involves the taking of hostages.   Persians most likely don't fully get how we perceive this.   They have their own multi-cultural misunderstandings.   But nobody seems to be misunderstanding one thing and that is the US and its allies have completely run out of patience with Iran.   We have quietly plotted a strategy to make "Shock and Awe" look like a practice run.   We have built up assets - as now detected by Russia.   Almost all the pieces are in place.   And what does Iran do?   They take hostages.   But Jimmy Carter is not the Commander in Chief today.   And we no longer view the whole thing as a game.   It is certainly Iran's move.   The eleventh hour has arrived.

Labels: Iran

The Republican party has adopted Al Gore's position, the debate is over.   But while Gore says the debate is over concerning who or what caused the Earth to heat up one hole degree over the past couple centuries, the GOP has some other issues about which they believe there is no debate.   For example,

1) For 5,000 years "marriage" has involved persons of opposite gender.   Never before have homosexual persons been able to marriage.   What, precisely, has changed to even have a debate over whether they "should" be allowed to marry?   The answer is, nothing, so there should not be any debate.

2) There is little question that a child in the wound is "viable" - can be kept alive and advance into a healthy human being from very early in gestation, given modern medical science.   We talk about late term abortion when mid-term isn't really even a question of viability.   If a human life is viable, killing it is murder.   There's no debate.

3) Our public schools are miserable failures.   They don't come close to competing with those of other nations.   They should be scrapped and a new system devised.   How can one debate that?

4) Gun ownership is permitted by the Constitution.   There's no debate about that.   Every study shows clearly that societies are not made more dangerous by legal gun ownership.   Actually the contrary is true every time it is tested.   So why do we even debate the point?

The debate is over on so many issues the liberal Democrats and media hold near and dear.   We'll give up on the global warming debate when they are ready to admit most of their platform should get similar treatment!   We can wait a few years until they realize they are wrong.   And we can fund whatever folly they want to implement to combat carbon emissions via the money saved from taking down their other stupid solutions.

Labels: Democrat party, media bias

A pair of bald eagles has reportedly nested, produced some eggs and is now incubating them ... in Philadelphia!   Hooray!   Reuters tells us, "The bald eagle, depicted on the Great Seal of the United States, was almost wiped out by the pesticide DDT."   DDT has long been blamed for reductions in bald eagle populations.   There are, however, some inconvenient truths for that hypothesis (reported as fact by Reuters and others for several decades).   Of course you won't read many of these facts in the MSM.   You have to dig them out, one by one, through alternate sources and put the whole puzzle together for yourselves.

The first fact you should consider is DDT was first found to be a useful insecticide in 1939.   That discovery resulted in the award of a Nobel Peace Prize some years later.   It may very well have been the most important discovery of our times.   It was used to great effect by US troops during WWII to control typhus carried by lice as well as malaria carried by mosquitoes.   After the war when so many Europeans might have died from a typhus epidemic, it was used extensively and probably gets credit for Europe being in as good a condition as it is today.

One scientist said of typhus, "it has about 20 percent mortality, it kills the victim after about seven days, and it sometimes causes a striking complication: gangrene of the tips of the fingers and toes."   Yummy!   There's nothing so appeticizing as gangrene.

Some scientists, historians and other researchers postulate that no other organism on Earth has had such a dramatic effect on human history than epidemic louse-borne typhus.   An outbreak of typhus in 1557 to 1559 killed about 10% of the English population.   Typhus, not hunger, is the cause which killed most of the victims of the Irish potato famine.   During World War I typhus caused three million deaths in Russia.   Typhus killed hundreds of thousands of those who died in Nazi concentration camps.

Typhus is probably more important to the history of mankind than any hundred, maybe thousand, famous people you or your kids read about in books discussing pre-WWII history.   It, more than any other factor, determined the outcome of wars, the rise and fall of civilizations, not to mention the "cleanliness is next to godliness" ethos of modern human beings.   Americans wear their clothing once and then wash them, take daily showers, and generally get grossed out by lice thanks to typhus.   We are not excessively clean (by historical standards) because we dislike body odor, believe cleanliness is indicative of productivity, or for any other reason aside from typhus.   Typhus has determined our destiny at least as much as any other aspect of life on Earth.

We live in a time of epidemic malaria in tropical and subtropical regions such as Africa.   Every year, malaria infects 400 million people and kills 3 million.   That is a little more severe than, for example, AIDS, wouldn't you say?   AIDS has killed about 25 million people or so - just a decade's worth of malaria deaths - in its three decade reign over our public health policies.   Malaria, far more than AIDS, is responsible for the poverty and parentless children of Africa.

DDT was a more monumental discovery than antibiotics.   It has nearly wiped typhus from the face of the planet.   It could do the same for malaria but its use is prohibited in many places and protested against at every turn.   The protests against DDT created the modern environmental movement.   Environmentalists were successful in their efforts to ban the insecticide in the US.   It all began with a book entitled "Silent Spring" which alleged that DDT harmed bird reproduction by thinning egg shells.   It postulated that birds ate insects which had been exposed to DDT, were contaminated but didn't die, and then produced eggs with ultra-thin shells which could not last through incubation.   Opposition to DDT is as seminal to "greens" as wars and natural disasters are to the Red Cross.   Greens are viscerally opposed to the use of DDT regardless of scientific evidence contrary to their beliefs.   And evidence there is.   Junk Science has a nice list of this evidence in its "100 things you should know about DDT."   If you think bald eagles were almost made extinct via DDT, you should check out this piece.   For beginners, consider:

• Widespread use of DDT began about 1946 but bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 .
  
  
• The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937 - 9 years before the use of DDT in this country.
  
  
• The Audubon Society counted 25 percent more eagles in 1960 than during the 1941 bird census.
  
  
• No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.   [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]
  
  
• Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.   [Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 4(3):136-140]
  
  
• U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970).   [U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]
  
  
• Experiments with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild.   Experiments demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

Please do continue your research into the facts about DDT at Junk Science's "100 things you should know about DDT."   It is likely far more critical to the survival of the human race than 100 hours you could spend understanding the possibility of human induced global climate change.

All that having been said, allow me to tell you that I do care for the bald eagle.   There's a nesting pair not two miles from my home in the most densely populated place on Earth, New Jersey.   I watched one of them fly on their way to hunting grounds the other day.   I've been looking for them for the past several years but most often all I see are the numerous hawks which preside over my neighborhood.   The eagle is not as frequent a visitor even though I live between its nest and one of its favorite hunting areas.   Eagles don't much like humans, choosing to live away from homes and avoid contact as much as possible.   I enjoy the eagle on those few occassions I get to watch them soar.   I'm certainly not interested in causing their extinction.

As Reuters reports, there are thousands of nesting pairs in the US and most likely their relative success is causing them to move into the less desirable neighborhoods of places like Philadelphia.   Reuters is almost gleeful when it tells us "the appearance of breeding bald eagles in the midst of an urban area like Philadelphia is an exciting development and particularly welcome in a city so important to early U.S. history ... This national symbol is now nesting in what used to be the capital of the United States."   Yet they are concerned because "the birds' survival may be threatened by plans for a $150 million produce market and a new marine terminal in the Navy yard, and by an expected move to lessen the official protection of the eagles because of their strong rebound."   This is, after all, the "first time in more than 200 years" that bald eagles have been spotted in Philly.

All I can think of is either these birds or human beings are destined for trouble if eagles start nesting in urban areas.   Either the birds are going to run into troubles or we're going to have to do what the environmentalists think is perfectly logical, abandon all development in our cities and move the humans out of the birds' way!   We either conclude that this pair is causing its own problems or we move everyone out of Philly.   By the way, no cougars or bears have been seen in the city either over the past two hundred years.   Cougars are believed to have ranged over all of the continental US once.   Bears can be found within a few tens of miles.   Perhaps we ought to set the stage for these two mammals to return as well!

We have gone completely batty (or birdy if you prefer) when we allow millions of human beings to die based on faulty or nonexistent science embraced by the religious left to support a ban of the most important discovery in the history of human beings.   If we pursue a mistaken policy based on wrong science forged in order to aid one species of bird of prey because we chose it to be a symbol of the country (a meaningless designation) and act to the detriment of that country and its people, not to mention the entire population of the continent of Africa, we are truly mad and perhaps natural selection will deservedly remove us from the face of the Earth before much longer.   There's no more reason to see a nesting pair of bald eagles within the city limits of Philadelphia as a good thing than there is to see the return of typhus-carrying louse as a sign the earth is returning to its natural state.

Labels: environmentalism

The New York Times has reported that our climate is changing.   They did so in ... 1855, 1870, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1908, 1934, 1947, 1950, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, and every year since then.   The only thing consistent in all these reports is the acceleration in reporting some sort of doom and gloom.   If you go back over these stories, the newspaper of record has alternated between tales of catastrophe from the coming ice age to those warning of catastrophic warming due to carbon emissions and back again.   Each time, the author tries to disabuse the reader of his misconceived notions regarding the workings of our climate and deliver just the straight poop.   Taken as a whole, the reporting is laughable.   Take a look for yourself.

Labels: environment, global warming

You've probably already read the news regarding a study of kids and the connections between vocabulary, behavior and child care (as defined as, "provided by anyone other than the child's mother who was regularly scheduled for at least 10 hours per week").   Kids in childcare had better vocabulary!   Gasp!   But they had only slightly better vocabulary.   And no controls seem to have been in place to judge other external factors like vocabulary of parents or that of the "teachers" at expensive day care centers.   Behavior problems also were seen in kids who were lodged at care centers during the day because both Mommy and Daddy needed to work to make ends meet ... for that third or fourth annual vacation to Europe or someplace else expensive for "cultural enrichment."

Aren't these the central lies of upper middle class America?   The kids need to be socialized so we're making sure they interact with others their own age ... at "school" ... in the nursery ... for children under the age of 2.   Yes, they are more aggressive than other children who stayed at home with a parent but the world is aggressive, I'm glad Sally is aggressive.   Yes I'm sorry she hit your 6 month old over the head and stole his toy but we don't want to discourage her aggression - it manifests her survival instinct which will be very important after she passes the bar exam.

We need to socialize our kids.   And its important for Sally to watch her mother go off to work in a meaningful job in corporate America.   That's right my job title is head of managing accounts payable clerks, and all I really do is make sure everybody does their jobs just like they did them last year, though faster.   And my company does just sell junk food (junk magazines, sexy underwear, pool chemicals, or fraudulent financial services).   But I feel more valuable to the human race when I work than when I'm stuck at home changing diapers.   I didn't work my way through college to wipe poop out of a child's butt.   And my job isn't as important as setting a good example for Sally.   She needs to see that a woman can operate within the business world as a powerful person.   Did I tell you I got a huge bonus this year for running things more effectively even with a ten percent headcount reduction.   I'm proud of that.   Ralph and I are very proud of that.   We're going to Italy to celebrate the bonus.   We're leaving the kids with Mom and Dad so we can have a second honeymoon.   We see each other so little as it is ...

We send our kids to day care to socialize them, to make THEM better.   It doesn;t have anything to do with our growing narcicism.   That was the old lie we told ourselves.   There's another one a brewin'.   The new lie is the reason kids from day care are poorly behaved is "primary school teachers lack the training as well as the time to address behavior problems, given their primary focus on academics."   Can you smell the money liberals will want to throw at that shortcoming of our educational system?

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon ... when you coming home mom, I don't know when, but we'll have a good time then, you know we'll go over your vocabulary then ...

Labels: Raising Children

The Senate is extremely busy doing important work, like the following:

"S. Con. Res. 24

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR LIVE EARTH CONCERT."

Read more at The Crypt

Honestly, don't these people have anything better to do (on our behalf) than support their own ideological, dare I say religious, causes.   Is the Senate only a place where environmentalists set the stage to convince us all that Gaia is real and already offended by the actions of humans?   Oh! Live Eearth isn't about Gaia?   It's really just a fundraiser for the anti-global warming "cause?"   Please explain to me what the difference is.   I'm not nuanced nor sophisticated enough to grasp the difference.

Gore and his cadres are ultimately Gaia hypothesis promoters.   These people belive (with religious fervor) that the Earth is a living, breathing, homeostatic organism which has a major health issue - parasites.   The parasites are you and me - human beings.   If that's not a religious belief, I don't know what one is.   Where are the advocates of separation of church and state now?

Labels: environmentalism

Crain's New York Business (NYB) claims Rudy Giuliani is not fit to be the nation's next president.   The online magazine conducted a poll which found he doesn;t have the "right temperament to be an effective president."   NYB's Alair Townsend wrote in the publication that Giuliani’s strong personality would not translate well when it comes to dealing with Congress and world leaders.   NYB then conducted a poll to see if readers agree.   70% did.   One poll respondent wrote, "If there's one thing we should have learned from the current administration, it's the tragic risks we face when our leaders fail to listen to divergent views.   For the sake of the nation, we need to get as far from 'my way or the highway' thinking ... as possible."   But let's be honest.   Most of the readers of NYB are New York business people.   New Yorkers of whatever ilk are mostly liberals.   New York business people are mostly Democrat-party-supporting, wealthy liberals - so called limousine liberals.   Should it be a shock that 70% of limousine liberals want to bring down Rudy any way they can?

Right now the liberals are having their own problems.   This election started way too early as it is.   And there is an overly competitive race for the Democrat party's nomination.   Hillary could win.   So could Obama and Edwards.   Maybe Richardson has a shot too?   The race between the three leaders is a bit too close right now.   they are competing with each other for money and that puts a drain on a party which typically runs behind its opponent in fundraising.   The three candidates are working hard to define themselves as fundamentally different from each other.   This is the type of thing which causes platform confusion.   And many hard feelings have already been raised between those who are opposed to this candidate or that and those who actually go to work for or advocate one of the candidates over the other two.   So you've got a financial drain as well as an ideological one.

Contrast this hotly contested Democrat primary race for presidential nomination with the slowly developing Republican one.   A few people have had their names mentioned.   Mostly they have been disqualified by one thing or another.   It's probably boiling down to a Romney - Rudy race.   McCain most likely doesn't have a realistic shot since he would be in his mid seventies before taking office.   Also, as he has tried to appeal to so-called moderates, he has alienated himself somewhat from the base.   You need the base to win primaries and to obtain funding.   McCain is probably out of this race before it begins.   Rudy has baggage with respect to his socially liberal positions.   Romney has avoided that by making himself into a "pro-lifer."   But Romney has other problems.

For one thing Romney lost in a race against ted Kennedy for Senate.   Of course he did, you're probably thinking.   Nobody could beat Kennedy or any other liberal in Taxachussets.   Maybe that's true but consider that if Rudy didn't develop prostate cancer and drop out of the race when he was running for the Senate, he most likely would have beaten Hillary, perhaps badly.   Rudy may have beaten Hillary badly because he is immensely popular in New York.   Rudy is so popular in New York that if the race boils down to Rudy vs. Hillary (or anyone else), Rudy will probably deliver New York to the Republican party.   And New York's about as liberal as San Francisco!

The media would like us to believe that Rudy was popular AFTER September 11.   That's true but Rudy was immensely popular BEFORE September 11.   I've mentioned some things he did which led to his popularity - I don't want to go over them again.   Rudy was so popular in liberal NYC that nobody could even muster a reasonable race against him.   Consider that Rudy was so popular that he set the stage for a Republican to again win the once exclusively Democrat position.   Giuliani cleaned the clocks of the Democrat party in Democrat New York numerous times.   We won every demographic most of the time as well.   Men voted for him; women voted for him; blacks and hispanics voted for him; and a majority of liberals voted for him!   Heck, I wouldn't have been surprised to hear the wife of his opponents voted for him!   he was that popular.

Giuliani is known to be a formidable executive.   He is not known for a "my way or the highway" way of thinking.   He'd be the first to tell you that almost none of what he has implemented are his own ideas per se.   He has philosophical positions on what works.   But he is an effective executive.   Effective executives in the real world learn to listen to others.   They draw and surround themselves with the best people available.   Perhaps Bush didn't do that but neither did Clinton.   Reagan had some good people around him but he also had some who were not quite up to the job.   Unfortunately, towards the end, his faculties may not have been what they were years earlier - that's why McCain cannot win at the age of 72.   Giuliani wouldn't be that old until the end of a second term!   Carter didn't have good people around him and even if he did, he probably wouldn't have listened to them.   He was apparently incapable of delegation and he was not used to really listening to advisors.   Giuliani actively seeks out advice and listens to his experts.   He is not a "my way or the highway" kind of guy.   He's just tough once a course of action has been determined.

Americans have almost always understood that what is needed in the Oval Office is an executive, not a negotiator, not a philosopher, not a debater.   Right now the front runners on the Democrat side are all Senators and an ex-Senator.   They're debaters and negotiators.   They aren't executives.   If Americans choose to elect a non-executive to an executive position, they'll pay the price.   The media and liberals, especially limousine liberals understand this and that's why they are running scared.   That's why they have to pick at Giuliani at every possible turn.   But these latest efforts to paint him as parochial most likely will fail as soon as the man opens his mouth.   You see, that's the biggest problem Democrats face right now.   They know that once Giuliani opens his mouth, he will win the election.   They need to beat him now, before he gets out of the gates.

Labels: Rudy Giuliani

I've told you that we have used fluorescent light bulbs for years.   We started using them because of the difference in life - in other words, I'm too lazy to change a bulb.   But since they're all the rage these days, I decided to look a little further into this new solution to the world's problems.

If you want to replace your standard 100 watt bulb, the CFL (compact fluorescent light) bulbs you want are 23 watt ones.   Home Depot sells them for $8 plus tax, so rounding it off a bit, I'd call them an 8 buck per unit investment.   You can find them for cheaper in places but it is hardly worth the effort to hunt down price specials for something like this.   Your standard bulb costs 50 cents including tax and is available just about any place at or near that price including the grocery store, convenience store, etc.   So the price ratio is $8.00 vs. $.50.

But the CFL bulbs will last a lot longer than the standard.   My experience is the CFL will last about as long as 3-5 of the regular kind.   Many web sites and information leaflets claim they last as long as 10 regular bulbs but for whatever the reason, we don't find that to be true.   It may be our tendency to leave these lights on since they last longer and cost less to operate.   So after you factor in my personal experience with the CFL, the price differential should be adjusted as follows: CFL $8 / old bulb (5 times $.50) $2.50.   One web site I saw said the CFL will save you about $6.57 per year so the net savings in my real world circumstance is $2.50 plus $6.57 minus $8 for a grand total of about $1.07 per bulb per year.   That's not hay since we have almost 50 bulbs around our space.   I'll take it and we can use our windfall to go out to Applebees.   But it turns out not to be so simple.

We can't use the CFl on dimmers - that causes a fire hazard.   That removes 6 bulbs from the replacement population.   It also turns out that CF bulbs' lumens output is very temperature dependent.   That removes another 5 bulbs from my list.   It also turns out that my cheapy photo control is not suitable for use with CFLs.   You need a special one for that - two more bulbs gone.   Mechanical timers are also a problem.   Either the timer or the bulb is destined to die prematurely.   Two more bulbs gone.   So in the end, it turns out that only about 35 are susceptible to being replaced.   My savings are down to $35 and unless I want to go for one of the special and skip the beer, it looks like we won;t be hitting Applebees after all.

I will certainly continue to use CFLs.   Nothing in my analysis refutes the fact that you ain't gotta change 'em as frequently.   That's why I got them in the first place.   I'd use CFLs even if there was an impending ice age and using fosil fuels was mandated by big brother.   But let's stop telling lies about how easy and convenient they are to use and about how much money and energy we'd be saving if we outlawed the old kind of bulbs.   That is a crock of horse shit.

Labels: environment

Is anyone going to be surprised if someone associated with PETA is eventually discovered to have something to do with the pet food poisoning that has been making the news rounds lately.   The most recent story says rat poison is the cause of numerous pet deaths and serious illnesses.   There is some speculation that baited traps set around grain shippers might have something to do with it but that fails to take into account that the substance, which is also used as a cancer chemotherapy treatment, is not registered for killing rodents in the United States.   So presumably, it would have to enter the food chain somehow else.   Law enforcement officials have not indicated any ongoing investigation of the incident.   That's too bad.   Somehow I expect that if they did investigate some whacko former or current PETA member would eventually be implicated.

Labels: PETA

The AP reports sales of existing homes were up in February, up more than they have been in 4 years.   That's really bad news ... for the liberals who keep hoping the economy will crumble.   They'd like to see those housing numbers continue to fall.   In lieu of such good news as a crumbling economy, the lib.s have resorted to spin.

The AP notes that while housing was up solidly, it was "still 3.6 percent lower than a year ago."   You remember a year ago, don't you?   That's when the records were being set.   3.6% below a record level is still damn good.

Then there's the weather thing.   The AP says, "Analysts, who had been looking for sales to decline in February, said the increase reflected warmer weather in the Northeast and Midwest and said that the housing industry is still not on a sustained rebound."   Warmer weather?   In the northeast?   Which northeast was that?   Was that the same one which got hit with the ice storm that threw most of my northeastern friends into a buying frenzy, a firewood buying frenzy, as we struggled to survive without the modern convenience of heat.   february in these here parts was freakin' cold and nasty.   Whose zoomin' who?   There was no "warmer weather in the Northeast and Midwest" in February!

Somebody's fibbin'

Labels: liberal spin, media bias

Don't change your lightbulbs just yet.   Instead pay some more taxes and embrace Socialism.

Al Gore admitted he isn't really after that yesterday on Capital Hill.   Competitive Enterprise Institute tells us he dropped the pretense and admitted that what he is after, to solve what he describes as a threat to the existence of humanity, is "steep increases in energy taxes, a cap-and-trade regulatory system that would put rapidly declining limits on greenhouse gas emissions, more restrictive fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, a huge federal intervention in the finance market to subsidize more energy efficient houses, a prohibition on new coal-fired power plants unless equipped with expensive carbon sequestration technology, and a vast increase in federal payments to people who cannot afford the steeply higher prices to heat and light their homes."   But don't take their word for it.   Check out this story which notes Gore wants to reduce US greenhouse emissions by 90% in 45 years.   Yes, 90%!   American Daily suggests Gore and his cronies make "Marx and Lenin look conservative."   Even ultra-liberals like the San Francisco Chronicle admit that people listen more intently to price increases (read tax increases) than they do documentaries.   So clearly what Al Gore is after is your wallet.   How about this story suggesting Al Gore wants us to use dimmer lights so he can run around the shadows with his powerful new age buddies without you knowing about it.   Gore is not interested in a few simple steps to save a pittance of energy and, thereby, save the planet.   What he wants is to get your attention so he can implement Socialism.   That's been what the environmentalists have been after all along.   They don;t give a hoot about some owl in the woods nobody has ever seen.   They just want to stop business.   They want government to control everything in our lives.   They lament the fall of the Soviet Union.   They despise America's rise.   They want control, complete control.   They are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and lie some more in order to achieve it.

Labels: Al Gore, global warming, Socialism

I have to admit that I'm not much of a hockey fan.   I tried to like it as a kid but it didn't take.   Back then, you really couldn't follow the puck well on our lousy TV sets.   I enjoyed watching live games like our local high school team.   There you could sit, watch the whole rink, and understand the ebb and flow of the game since you could follow the puck.   You could also enjoy the athleticism of the players as they skated forwards, backwards, and sideways, passed, shot, etc.   I even enjoyed pro hockey games on the few occasions I was able to catch a live one.   But I never became as dedicated a fan as I had become of the sports of football, baseball, basketball, etc.   These days I'm happy I'm not a fan of hockey.   The sport has some serious issues which it chooses to ignore.

Did you catch the video clip of the fistfight during the New York Rangers game?   One player landed a blow so hard it knocked the other player to the floor and ultimately resulted in him receiving a concussion.   That's the first time I've seen such a thing in hockey.   Most of the time players end up with bloody noses, facial bruises or just a jersey which has been stretched out of shape.   But any fight in the middle of a hockey game is disgraceful, even shameful.

Despite what many fans think, hockey players are not great fighters.   Not a one of them would last a round in the ring with an amateur boxer of any skill.   That's true even if the amateur fighter were several tens of pounds lighter, and noticeably smaller than the hockey player who dared to enter the ring.   Boxing has its own elegance as extremely well trained fighters work exclusively on the fundamental skills they need to throw a good punch and defend against someone else doing likewise.   A hockey player who got into the ring with a trained fighter would be ripped to shreds and wind up hitting the canvas before the bell at the end of the first round sounded.   Fighting is not the strong point of the athletes who work on their own set of fundamental skills of skating while working a stick ill-suited for stopping, shooting and otherwise manipulating an impossibly fast little puck of hard rubber.

Hockey players' real skills are a wonder to behold.   They are excellent skaters and do learn to work miracles with that funny stick.   Despite my lack of overall interest in the sport, I do have high regard for their skill set.   I could never learn to do those things.   But the fighting detracts from those same skills.   Hockey fights are boring affairs.   Like I said, if I wanted to watch good fighting skills, I would find myself a boxing match to watch.

It is an interesting exercise to extrapolate the National Hockey League's approach to fighting to other sports as well as the lower levels of hockey itself.   Baketball is as much a contact sport as hockey.   It would be easy to extend the NHL's approach to the NBA.   Two players go up for a rebound and collide.   One says something to ther other and the next thing you know, they are pulling at each other's jersey with one hand while pounding away at their faces with the other.   The referees stand idly by until there is a break in the action and then separate the players.   They call technical fouls on each team, designated players shoot the foul shots, the two players sit down for 2 to 5 minutes to cool off, and the game continues.   Each team would have a designated fighter or two whose job it would be to take out the best offensive player from the other team by starting a fight.   Every game would have at least one all out fistfight.   And we'd all either run for the exits, never to return at least not with our kids, or sit there and cheer on an event which has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the contest we paid big money to watch.

We could even extend the NHL approach to women's professional basketball.   Now that would be some real fun.   And if we extend hockey's fighting to other sports like basketball, football or baseball, we should also extend it back into the youth leagues since, quite obviously, we see the fighting as part of the sport.   We would have raised fist fighting skills to a point where they are considered one of the fundamental skills of the game.   We could then teach our boys to fight properly instead of this ridiculous display which passes for a prize fight at professional games.   We could teach them how to throw and defend against a real punch.   We would allow the kids to have fights during youth games since that's just another of the many facets of the sport.   They'd have to hone these necessary skills sometime.

The NHL could get rid of the ridiculous, inelegant, shameful fighting it currently permits anytime they wanted to.   All they would have to do is send the player starting the fight to the penalty box for the remainder of the game leaving the innocent team a permanent power play.   That would change the outcome of games and perhaps the playoffs.   The league could also do what other sports leagues do by suspending players for a game or two every time they get into a fight.   Repeat occurrences could result in longer and longer suspensions, ultimately leading up to removal from the league.   Players starting fights could be fined significant amounts.   There's any number of options which the league could use separately or in conjunction that would completely end fighting on the game floor.   It would be a simple matter.   But the league chooses not to do that.   Maybe that's why it struggles with such poor TV ratings.

Labels: Sports

Al Gore said yesterday before Congress, "the planet has a fever.   If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."   He then went on a rant about not relying on science fiction novels for your facts.   These are two pearls of wisdom!   Both very simple yet true.   Sometimes the simple observation, the easiest answer, is the best, but not always.

The baby fever line is really kewl.   It's catchy.   It's kind of like the "attention grabber" line my 10 year old is learning to use in her language arts class.   That's also the sound bite Al wanted reported out to and by the media.   Right on cue, most MSM outlets replayed it over and over again.   "If your baby has a fever ..."

Well, yesterday my baby just happened to wake up with a fever of 102+.   Before we heard simple Al's pearl of wisdom, we knew we had to take her to the doctor.   The pediatrician examined her and decided that she might have a strep infection.   She swabbed her throat and then performed two tests, one short-term and one which would take a little over 24 hours.   She wouldn't prescribe medicine to treat a possible strep infection without being absolutely sure that was the problem.   I wondered why she wouldn't just give us the med.s and then wait to see how the 24 hour test came out.   When I suggested this, she gave me a look and said, "we don't like to do that."   Her eyes held the real message which went something like "look buddy, you're not a doctor.   I am.   I happen to know what I'm doing.   If I say get her this medicine for strep, then you go get it.   If I don't, there's a reason for that."

So I wondered, what if she doesn't have strep?   What then?   Aren't you going to prescribe some sort of antibiotic?   She is apparently sick, after all.   She has a fever!   Shouldn't we just do something?   The doctor reacted a little differently than I expected to this line of questioning.   She said, we give antibiotics only when we are dealing with a bacterial infection.   Right now, I don't see that.   Until we know we have a bacterial infection, no antibiotics.

I guess I have been conditioned to believe that whenever you are sick, you get some antibiotics.   Most people I know are conditioned similarly.   You might even say there is a consensus.   Just how was this consensus formed?   It wasn't created by non-doctor talking to non-doctor.   Rather the doctors themselves created the popular notion that when you get sick, you get antibiotics.   They reasoned that even if the infection were viral rather than bacterial, it was prudent to prescribe antibiotics since viral infections often weaken the immune system to such an extent that a subsequent bacterial infection often ensues.   Everyone I know took that little pearl of wisdom to heart and every time their kid got sick, they went to the doctor with the expectation of obtaining an antibiotic prescription.

The common wisdom of the medical profession from several decades has turned out to be not just wrong but exactly wrong.   Research has told us that using antibiotics when they aren't called for has negative effects.   Bacteria become immune to over-prescribed antibiotics, leaving us fewer and fewer defenses against what was once the scourge of human beings.   Also, as it turns out, humans have this amazing immune system which is often strengthened by relatively mild bacterial infections.   Childhood respiratory infections make a person stronger.   Dealing with every infection by applying antibiotics can actually set the stage for asthma as well as other problems later in life.   Being sick is just part of the natural cycle and has its benefits too.

There are, of course, limits to how long one would permit a bacterial infection to fester before applying medicines.   You wouldn't wait until a child developed pneumonia, for example, before using antibiotics.   But every head cold or mild respiratory is not a call to action.   Medical professionals today wait until they are certain an infection is bacterial before using antibiotics.   They now recognize all the damage which has been done by a knee-jerk reaction and following an errant protocol which once seemed so logical.   it turned out the issue wasn't nearly as simple as it seemed at first.   Now they take softer approaches until they are certain a person's own immune system and natural homeostasis cannot adequately deal with the problem.

So now we come full circle to Al Gore's simple diagnosis and prescription.   Al Gore says the planet has a fever.   But he's no medical professional.   He's a politician, professor, and businessman.   He's just like anyone else.   He has ready many scientific journals and held many discussions with scientists in the field of climatology.   But he's no expert.   He is merely a spokesmodel.

Al Gore has no business prescribing antibiotics for what he perceives as a bacterial infection.   It's simple, the temperature is up.   It's complicated, the temperature is up from what, from when?   Even if we agree that the planet has a fever, we have to recognize that my kid's 102+ is a far higher fever than the small amount of variation we claim to see in teh planet's temperature.   That measurement is suspect to begin with but if it is valid, it does not seem to be a cause for concern in and of itself.   There is no clear and convincing evidence that the planet's fever is anything more than a very mild warming, like the warming you get from walking around the block during lunch break.   Like the warming the planet has undergone numerous times before, before man burned anything.   There's no reason to prescribe antibiotics now.   Let's wait for the test results even if that means waiting a long time.   If we act to treat this fever, we just may find out that we did exactly the wrong thing and made the situation worse than it would have been had we left it alone.

Labels: Al Gore, global warming

Blackhawk down and all that.   Those insurgents in Mogadishu were supposed to be angry at US troops.   That's why they dragged the bodies of US servicemen through the streets and lit them on fire.   Right?   Wrong!   They did that because it is the best they can come up with.   They did that because they are animals.   Now they've done it again but this time it was one Ethiopian and one Somali soldier who were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.   This is what they do.   Anger doesn't factor into the equation.   This is the way they fight.   The rest of us should repay them in kind.   They deserve no sympathy.   If we show them any love at all, it should be our love of human dignity.   That can be shown to them at the end of a bayonet, rifle, or missile.

Labels: Somalia

When my high school placed me in a special class for the study of Afro-Asian cultures, they had no idea that the teacher they had recently employed to teach the class was a card-carrying Communist who valued all cultures and religions over those which had dominated the American scene for centuries.   The teacher sought to convince us that Communism was a superior form of government because prior to its rise to power in China, many thousands of people starved to death, and afterwards absolutely nobody went hungry.   That was rubbish but as a young adolescent, I did not possess the evidence to prove my position.   My grades, as well as those of several other students suffered as a result.   As a tenth grader, I read such works as the Communist Manifesto, The Bhagavad Gita, parts of the Qu'ran (Quran, Koran, and Al-Quran) and numerous other works which either represented or advocated other cultures and types of government.   We, and presumably the school administration believed the class was for debating the pros and cons of various cultures.   They and we were wrong.   We were exposed to these other types of literature but the class was run in a manner intended to indoctrinate us in the rightness and goodness of other cultures while denigrating all things American.   The school discovered this after the year was over and fired the teacher.   In subsequent years, I marveled at the "debate" over cultural issues which raged on the American stage.   The empirical data, however, proved my teacher wrong about a primary thrust of that class.   Many in China continued to starve.   And the country did not prosper under Communism.   They have switched gears and embraced Capitalism because it is a superior system.   Some things are like that.   They are debated and debated but when the empirical results are in, we can no longer deal with them by using logic and rationalization.   Communism, perhaps, should be the better system.   But it isn't.   There's no reason for debate.

Similarly, advocates of the Great Society claimed that the "cycle of poverty" should be dealt with by spending huge sums of money to bring up the poor via welfare, government entitlements, affirmative action, etc.   The empirical results speak for themselves.   Those on welfare, and the generations which followed them, became imprisoned by the entitlement system which suppressed ambition and created a dependant class incapable of achievement.   The empirical data tell us better results can be achieved via more creative methods.   It's wrong to just throw money at a problem.   We still struggle with efforts to eradicate poverty in this country, but at least we understand that the pathway is not government entitlements.   Yet, we still struggle under the mass of the entitlement system we created many decades ago.   Once the Pandora's Box opened, it proved more than difficult to get most of the demons back into the box.   We can debate how best to deal with problems but reacting in a knee-jerk fashion with a full implementation of the first, most obvious answer, often proves extremely costly.

We often suffer under the mythology created by the media that "debate is over" when the reality is that it is not nearly so.   Anytime something other than an entitlement fails to deliver on its promise, the media reports it in bold headlines intended to send us back to the entitlement method as a stop-gap to prevent suffering.   That only prolongs the pain and sets up a future generation for a different sort of suffering.

The debate is over.   The debate is over.   The debate is over.   Life is not about debates.   Life is about reality.   We debate when we don't know.   The debate is never truly over until actual results are in.   The debate about the roundness or flatness of the Earth was "over" for centuries until it became obvious that there was no way it could be flat.   The debate over Communism continued until we could empirically judge its failure.   But because it became so entrenched, we still have to fight that battle despite the clear evidence debunking it.   The debate about the Earth being the center of the Universe was long over when it became clear that wasn't the case.   The debate about sea monsters was long over on the side of them being real, then being a fiction, and today perhaps being a reality since we now know there are 60 foot squids out there which will attack a human as prey when they find one!

The debate about human caused global warming is said to be over.   One pundit, Gregg Easterbrook, claims, "Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming is Over ... the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.   Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it.   Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed."   As we pointed out on several occasions, there are thousands of scientists in the United States alone who disagree with this statement.   Many of the thousands of scientists who are claimed to take part in the UN's IPCC's study of the issue disagree with the overall conclusions the IPCC has released in its executive summary.   That's the piece of fluff recently reported out as if it represented a scientific study when it is little more than a summary largely written by non-scientists.   The IPCC undoubtedly compiled (or is compiling) a large mass of scientific papers which it then weaves together to fit its conclusions.   But many of the scientists whose works are cited disagree with the overall conclusions of the UN's agency.

Some od the cited scientists believe the IPCC did a poor job of reporting out the consequences of anthropogenic global warming.   Some say they understated the potential problems.   Some say they exaggerated them in a dangerous, alarmist fashion.   Many disagree with parts of other studies as well as the way in which their personal studies were treated.   It isn't as if this thing fits together in a nice neat package where the final product is presented to all the scientists and these folks all rose for a standing ovation.   To the contrary, many began grumbling and then shouting down the "executives" who they believe have misused the findings of their studies.   Some who have studied hurricane and other weather phenomenon say the IPCC has interpreted their findings in exactly the wrong way.   It's really a rather ugly scene.

The debate over global warming is not nearly over.   Scientists can agree that the Earth has warmed some in recent decades but they have to ignore pre-1850 weather in order to make the claim that we are living in a hothouse.   As we pointed out yesterday, they cannot even agree that there is such a thing as a measurable metric often referred to as "global average temperature."   They can agree that carbon in the atmosphere should cause some heat to be reflected back towards Earth instead of being allowed to disperse back into outer space.   But they can neither agree that it is happening nor measure the correlation between a specific level of atmospheric carbon and the amount of energy which is held in via the "greenhouse."   They cannot say with any certainty that there is a cause and effect relationship between atmospheric carbon and a rising temperature on Earth other than to acknowledge that rising temperatures by themselves cause liquefied carbon dioxide and frozen methane to be released into the atmosphere.   They cannot conclude that carbon and methane make the temperature rise.   The system is just too complex for current modeling.

There are actually far more questions yet to be posed, let alone already raised, than there are firm empirical answers in this scientific realm.   Yet the media tells us the debate is over.   So does Al Gore and many other pundits, some of whom have political agendas and some of whom do not.   There have been any number of posters on this blog who claim even if we are not sure, we cannot afford to act affirmatively.   That's what we did to defeat the "cycle of poverty" and we live with the consequences of that.   If we take clear action today because we are afraid the monster of global warming is going to eat us all, we had better be prepared to live with the expensive consequences of acting with partial, perhaps minimal, knowledge.   They'll be with us long after the empirical results are in and we know the truth.

Labels: global warming

One of the latest articles to come out of the Associated Press is perhaps a testimony to the weakness and softness of America. The article has to do with anonymous comments posted on message boards and blogs...

It was yet another example of how the Internet — and the anonymity it affords — has given a public stage to people's basest thoughts, ones that in earlier eras likely never would have traveled past the watercooler, the kitchen table or the next barstool.

The article goes on to suggest that anonymous commenting is out of control, that it hurts people's feelings and destroys their character. Then it explains what other organizations have done to combat it, like Yahoo removing commenting from its articles, and the Orange County Register limiting comments to registered users and deleting comments that are inappropriate.

But perhaps what this article suggests is that people have grown thin skinned. The fact that the Associated Press would even report that anonymous comments are hurting people, suggests the perception of panic.

In other words, the implication is that because we now have anonymous comments on the Internet, we must therefore react and do something to stop it.

My suggestion however, is not to limit free speech, but realize that speech is just speech. Actions always speak louder than words, and we are always judged by our actions, not by our words.

SINCE WHEN was someone's character destroyed because of an anonymous comment?

SINCE WHEN does any American accept an anonymous commenter as someone of authority?

SINCE WHEN does someone lose sleep because an anonymous commenter called them a fatso?

If you lose sleep over a derogatory remark from an anonymous commenter, it suggests weakness on your part.

Let anonymous comments flow; just don't be such a pussy.

Labels: Blogging, Social Trends

There has been a lot of scuttle butt around which wonders whether Barack Obama was ever a Muslim.   Apparently, some childhood friends walked with him to the mosque on Fridays.   Apparently, even when he attended the parochial school, he was registered as a Muslim as so many others were as well.   Apparently, there is more than a question about whether Barack was ever a semi-practicing Muslim.   What's the big deal?   We live in an enlightened multi-cultural nation which respects the individual and his freedom to make choices.   The very foundation of our culture is freedom of religion and out government is consitutionally required to seperate church and state.   Americans, other than those living in DC, are all fairly well read, intellectually sound, culturally varied, etc.   Democrats are the party of multi-culturalism which embraces all our differences.   All those enlightened folks in the party's base should be able to understand a man's religion imposed by his father and freely converted away from.   Let's get the facts out.   Barack just explain completely your religious upbringing and we'll deal with it.   There's nothing wrong with a presidential candidate who was once a Muslim.   We are an enlightened lot.   That won't change the outcome of the primary or ultimate election.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

Yesterday I heard Matt Lauer talking about the anniversary of the Iraq war and complaining about the incredible loss of life of both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.   He cited some 3,200+ soldiers on our side as well as what "some claim is 60,000 Iraqis."   I have no doubt that I am, we are all, diminished by any human being's death in this continuing conflict.   But before the anti-war, Bush-bashing crowd can hang their collective hat on these figures, there are some things I would like answered.

One question which pops immediately to mind is, if Bush's team, particularly Runsfeld, has so completely mismanaged this effort, why are there so many empty body bags laying around?   I'm not saying that this thing was perfectly planned or executed.   I am just asking how the number of coalition deaths compares to the pre-war estimates.   How many did we expect to lose?   The figure range of 50,000 - 100,000, perhaps more, somehow rings a bell.   In fact, the opposition said something like the US will lose its heart when the first hundred thousand soldiers die on the battlefield.   They didn't think we'd be able to continue while losing hundreds of thousands of lives.   Apaprently they were right and wrong.   Their numbers as well as those kicked around in the media were off by a sizeable factor.

And before we lament the 60,000 Iraq deaths, can we at least subtract out the number of Iraqis who would have died during the same period under Saddam?   What do you figure that number would amount to?   Oh yeah, it would have been greater than 60,000.   Actually, it might have been that many for each of the four years since we invaded.   And don't claim that somehow the current situation is worse because so many of the dead were women and children.   Saddam and his crew were not biased against women and children.   They tortured, raped and killed them at equal rates.

Labels: Bush Bashing, iraq

Do you like filet of Gore?   If so, you're in for a treat.   Al Gore's brand of environmentalism will be on trial tomorrow as he is invited to appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.   Of course, the prosecution will have no interest in conviction.   But some of the resident attorneys will at least ask a few tough questions.   Nowhere will you hear the questions I would like answered.   That won't stop me from at least posing them here.   So,without any further commentary, here goes:

Mr. Gore,

• You have said the average person can help out with this problem by replacing standard bulbs with a new kind which, while more expensive, is far more energy efficient.   Why are these bulbs more expensive?   Is the cause the materials or energy required to manufacture them?   How much more energy?   What sorts of materials are involved?   What sort of environmental impact might those materials have when they are thrown away?   How will we, for example, sequester the trace amount of mercury contained in billions of these light bulbs?   What happens if we fail to sequester just ten percent of it?
  
  
• You have suggested that we all change at least some part of our lives in order to combat this impending disaster.   In what ways have you changed your life to set an example for the rest of us?   We know about your personal real estate holdings and we have heard the excuses for them such as your "residence" actually serves as a place of business.   But after you subtract out the amount of office space you claim on your tax returns, just how much space is left over as living space for individuals who occupy the places as residences?   Do you feel that this amount of space per individual is appropriate if it were extrapolated to everyone on the Earth?   What is the right amount of living space for each individual human being upon the Earth?
  
  
• Some have complained that your personal energy use is well above the average.   We know you are currently installing solar power at at least one of your several residences.   We also know you claim to be "offsetting your carbon footprint" by paying money into funds which invest in technology and alternative fuels.   Could you please explain why it is that you have waited until now to convert to solar at your primary personal residence when you have been talking about this impending disaster for decades?   Does this have anything to do with the recent heavy criticism your energy usage has received?   How exactly do these "carbon offsets" you claim neutralize your "footprint" account for the removal of the huge amount of fosil fuel usage which occurs when, for example, you fly all over the globe?   Does any of this money directly benefit you personally or any of your closest associates by way of, for example, salaries which are above the world average wage rate?   How much does your fund payout in terms of compensation to its top ten earners?   How large of a salary have you made since the fund's creation?   Understand, we are not asking how much you have made since this came to light but rather for the years beforehand.
  
  
• Mr. Gore, you claim that much of what you speak about is scientifically sound.   Still, many scientists (those apparently unknown to the Associated Press) complain that much of the "science" cited in your documentary has been debunked.   Specifically, the "hockey stick graph" has come under more than its fair share of criticism.   In fact, the thing had been completely debunked before your film ever saw the light of day.   Why didn't you leave that as well as other debunked science on the cutting room floor?   If your position is completely supported by scientific research, why did you feel the need to use anecdotal representations rather than showing the hard science complete with a list of sources?   Why, for example, would you feel the need to show polar bears when so many species would be at risk under your worst case scenarios.   What is it about the polar bear, one of the few predators which hunt human beings whenever opportunity presents, which makes it an icon of global warming?   Is it because polar bears are one of the more popular exhibits at zoos?   Is it because human beings seem to have an affinity for anything fluffy, furry and white?   Why should we care more about the polar bear than say a species of bacteria, insect, or reptile when these species should be equally at risk?   Why didn't you choose frogs or lizards rather than polar bears?
  
  
• Obviously the notion of a danger associated with any "climate change" implies that somehow the Earth is currently at the perfect temperature for all who inhabit it.   That applies equally for species found only in polar regions and those elsewhere upon the planet.   How did you come to the notion that the earth has magically achieved the precise optimum average temperature for all species of plant and animal wherever located?
  
  
• Finally, if you could completely makeover your documentary, would you change anything about it?   What and why?
  
  

Those are just a few of the questions I would like the honorable Al to answer before I jump on his bandwagon, join the Church of the Condescending Environmentalist.

Labels: Al Gore, global warming

It seems on the surface to be an easy question.   How do we know the Earth's atmosphere is warming.   We know the Earth is warming because the average temperature now is higher than it was, say, in the 1850s.   Of course, anyone who has looked at the issue will remind us that 1850 is a bad place to start.   Actually there is no good place to start.   The Earth's atmpospheric temperature is always either going up or going down from both short-term and long-term views.   It never stays in the same place for more than a moment.   In the short-term, the reasons are easy to understand.   One side of the earth is warming while the other is cooling depending on whether it is day or night on each side.   Also, the Earth is always moving with respect to its primary source of heat, the Sun.   Further, other less important energy inputs like volcanoes and other types of from the hot core heat vents are constantly opening and shutting.   large volumes of matter are decaying or burning.   All animals convert their food not only into energy for growth and sustenance but also into heat which is exhaled.   The atmosphere exhausts heat into outer space.   The make-up of the atmosphere is never constant, either at a particular place or in an overall sense.   Everything is chaotic, everything is constantly in some sort of motion.   This raises the bigger issue which is how do we calculate this global average teperature.   We do that via a finite set of gauges and apply complex mathematics which gives varying weights to different measuring points because we just cannot establish a comprehensive set of temperature gauges which would give us realistic and mathematically useful measurements.   That would be too expensive.   It would require an impossibly large number of thermometers just to calculate the average temperature at, say, ten feet off the ground over the entire globe.   Factor in the millions of square miles of atmosphere above that ten feet mark and I think you begin to see how impossible this presumed mkeasurement is.   Now add to the complexity mix the different ways of calculating an average for all the measurements and you'll quickly see how much madness there is in this supposed science.   That never gets mentioned in the media.   What also never gets mentioned in the media is the fact that not only is it impossible to calculate an "average temperature" for the Earth, but also, even if we could calculate such a figure, it would be totally meaningless.   If you dig hard enough, you will uncover the truth which is any notion of a global average temperature is absurd.   Today, Science Daily reports a growing number of scientists agree the concept of an average temperature for Earth is thermodynamically and mathematically impossibile.

Labels: global warming

Let the Obama-Clinton war begin...

Labels: 2008 presidential election, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary

If you haven't yet seen the movie, "300", go see it. It's awesome, just for the action and cinematography.

But as I watched it, I couldn't help seeing the parallel with the situation we're in today.

You have the Spartans, with their Democratic philosophy, their love of freedom, and their champion of individual rights. And then you have the Persian empire, the ancient embodiment of present day Iran, with their philosophy of bowing to their ruler like a god.

As 300 of Sparta's mightiest warriors battled a massive Persian army, the wife of King Leonides reminded Sparta's house of delegates that "Freedom comes at the cost of blood".

It was while King Leonides faced the toughest part of the battle that another one of his Greek allies buckled under the weight of fear, and decided to pull his men out of battle and give up the fight.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the movie, "300" is showing right now, as the world's last champion of Freedom and Individual Rights prepares to do battle with modern-day Persia.

Labels: Iran

Liberals and the mainstream media are making you believe that the mortgage industry is to blame for the higher rate of foreclosures.

A foreclosure takes place because the homeowner failed to make the payments, plain and simple.

Blame the homeowner who didn't take home buying a serious affair. The "American Dream" is still the measure of success in this country. The question is, are you "tough enough" to reach it?

Stop blaming others for your failure.

Labels: Real Estate

Flash!   ABC News has an exclusive interview!!   It's a Barbara Walters Special!!!   What's the scoop?   It's all about the dictator who has been in US newspapers most frequently in recent months, of course!!!!

Bobwa Wawa has an interview with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez regarding his views on the United States, President Bush and America's 2008 presidential elections.   If she could have interviewed Adolph Hitler, himself, she would have.   You can't blame her for that.

But why would we ask the world's most recent Socialist dictator for his views about our Democracy?   Is there any doubt on this planet that Chavez is set to place everything material in the economy under his personal control?   Are we uncertain that, as he approaches the end of his last term - limited by the country's constitution - he will also abolish either the constitution itself or at least parts of it which concern limiting his authority or term?

Why do people like Barbara Walters love dictators so much?   Why does the media attempt to portray leaders in countries with Socialist dictators in the best possible light?

Make no mistake about it.   Barbara will use every debating / public speaking technique in her arsenal to paint a portrait of an entirely misunderstood man whose opinions on the world order we should at least consider since they are demonstrative of how the rest of the world feels about our country, especially when it's run by Republicans, especially conservative republicans, especially those evil Bush, Texan, conservative Republicans!!!!!

She will, of course, tell us about all the negative things Chavez has done or is doing.   She'll even talk about how he is a military man whose rise to power is somewhat dubious including his failed coup against a democratically elected president.   But she'll do this using the best debating techniques she has in her arsenal.   The piece will begin with an attention grabbing commentary about how important the man is and how he is a champion of Venezuela's downtrodden while also an ardent anti-US voice.   She'll explain what is good and right about the man.   Then she'll show the interview.   Then she'll get to the negative facts about the man, however briefly.   Finally, she'll close with more hyperbole about how he is an important world leader whose voice must not be ignored.

They really do think you are stupid!

Labels: media bias

Valerie Plame is the star in a melodrama scripted by Democrats which opens today.   Her fictional character is "spook," or "undercover spy."   But it is important to remember that this is a fiction despite what Democrats and the media want us to believe.

The media tries to make us believe otherwise but they keep coming back to the fact that no prosecution for "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is taking place.   That's because no crime was committed.   The Washington Post tells us "after reviewing what the FBI had, Fitzgerald widened his investigation to include 'any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure,' plus any efforts to obstruct the probe."   Yet they fail to mention that, very early in his probe, Fitzgerald knew exactly who had "leaked" her name.   That was anti-war, some would say anti-Bush, Colin Powell