Flying Above the Radar

On what the Sendai earthquake means for US energy policy

2011-03-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

The earthquake and tsunami last Friday which devastated the northeastern coast of Japan is a terrible natural disaster and my thoughts go out to the people of that great nation. It's not the most devastating natural disaster by far, due in no small part to Japan being a more technologically advanced society with better building codes, but it will still have far-reaching consequences for Japan and the rest of the world.

One of those consequences will result from the ongoing crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plants. At the Fukushima-daiichi plant, two reactor buildings have already exploded due to the build-up of hydrogen which resulted from attempts to cool the reactors with seawater. As far as we currently know, the reactor containment vessels are still intact, though at least one of the reactors has undergone partial melting of the nuclear fuel. The reactors were shutdown ("scrammed") when the earthquake hit but the fuel will continue to emit residual heat for several days. Cooling systems were damaged or rendered inoperable so the reactors are still very hot. They should cool in time but for now the goal is to prevent total meltdown.

Nuclear power is currently the most "green" energy source we have that is economically and technologically feasible. Other "green" sources are still being researched and none of them currently are capable of being implemented in a way that will provide a reasonable supply of electricity, let alone be cost-effective. Until something better comes along (such as the development of nuclear fusion as an energy source instead of a weapon), nuclear fission is the only significant energy source that does not involve burning something or, as in the case of hydro-electric dams, other large environmental impacts.

In the United States, no new nuclear power plants have been constructed since the Three Mile Island incident over 30 years ago. That incident was worse than the current situation in Japan and there was little to no effect on public health. Recently there have been a few additional licenses granted for new reactors in a limited effort to expand the use of nuclear power in the United States. The Obama Administration has publicly voiced support for nuclear power in the past, and continues to do so even with the situation as it is in Japan.

However, I'm not sure I buy it. My prediction is that the future of nuclear fission as an energy source in this country is effectively dead. Environmentalists will make every effort to prevent any new plants and reactors from being built, and to shut down any existing reactors. It's already happening as a quick search on your favorite search engine will tell you. I predict that the administration will ultimately and "regretfully" decide that we really can't afford the risk and will cancel all of the new licenses that have been issued, will advocate shutting down any existing reactors if possible, and will refocus its efforts on promoting other, less feasible technologies like wind and solar. I personally don't think Obama supports nuclear power at all but is only putting on the show of doing so to appease its supporters. I think this crisis will be yet another that they won't let "go to waste" in order to further their agenda.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do. We'll just have to wait and see whether or not I am.

A deplorable act

2011-01-10T13:54:00.000-08:00

I agree with everything in the following press release from the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

CCRKBA DEPLORES AZ SHOOTING,
SUBSEQUENT EXPLOITATION

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is condemning Saturday’s attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murders of six people including a federal judge and a 9-year-old child, for which a 22-year-old Tucson man is now facing charges.

“Our sincere sympathy and sorrow goes to the victims of this heinous crime, and their families, who are in our thoughts and prayers,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “This was a despicable act of cowardice, and we believe the full force of law should be used against the individual responsible.

“And speaking of despicable,” he continued, “we find it unconscionable that the gun prohibition lobby wasted no time at all in its attempt to exploit this hideous attack in an effort to further its political agenda. When will these people stop dancing in the blood of crime victims in an attempt to resuscitate their relevance?”

Gottlieb was especially critical of attempts by at least two different organizations to link an out-of-context remark made in 2009 by the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre to this crime. He called it a “shameless demonstration of the depths to which the anti-gun-rights lobby will stoop in an attempt to discredit gun rights organizations.

“We notice,” he said, “that little has been said about the courageous armed citizen, Joe Zamudio, who helped physically subdue the gunman. Despite Mr. Zamudio’s disclosure during interviews with CNN and Fox News that he was armed, the press appears to be largely ignoring this detail.

“The gun apparently used by the suspect, Jared Loughner, was quickly traced to a legal sale at a Tucson-area sporting goods store in November,” he added. “The speed by which that firearm was traced belies claims that police agencies are hindered by current statute that prohibits political exploitation of firearm trace data.

“A horrible crime has been committed, and our nation is stunned,” Gottlieb concluded. “But until this investigation is completed, it is disgusting that gun prohibitionists would rush to the nearest microphone, demanding that we need more laws, while trying to link firearms rights advocates to this tragedy.”

There is hope

2011-01-08T09:26:00.000-08:00

In Egypt, something wonderful happened:

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

Got it in one

2011-01-08T09:17:00.000-08:00

The quote of the day, from this article by John Hayward:

The assertion that some citizens have an unbreakable, arbitrary responsibility to provide sustenance for others is inherently hostile to the concept of liberty. You are not “free” when the collective demands of favored citizens can place unlimited demands on the fruit of your labor. A nation is not “free” when any class of its citizens faces such demands, no matter how badly outnumbered or politically unpopular they might be.

Go read it all.

Justice Breyer thinks banning guns is allowed under the Second Amendment

2010-12-12T13:46:00.000-08:00

He's really stretching for this one:

If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

To Justice Breyer I would say two things: First, regardless of what Madison actually thought, he was not the only founder and his is not the only opinion to value. Second, even if you're right, you cannot reasonably extrapolate that Madison, let alone all of the Founders, would support an outright ban on personal firearms as effectively existed in Washington DC prior to the Heller ruling.

He goes on:

"If you're interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story," Breyer said. "If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us."

That being the case, and particularly since the Founding Fathers did not foresee how modern day would change individual behavior, government bodies can impose regulations on guns, Breyer concluded.

Do you also agree, then, that "since the Founding Fathers did not forsee how modern day would change individual behavior" that government bodies can impose regulations on speech? Of course not. Some would say that this analogy is not valid, but throughout history governments have decreed that certain speech is just as dangerous as a gun. Of course, first they took away the guns, then they took away the right to speech. There's a lesson there, methinks.

Quote of the day

2010-12-08T09:00:00.000-08:00

Via the Patriot Post.

"More troubling than WikiLeaks' latest revelation of US secrets ... is the Obama administration's weak, wrong-headed and erratic response. Unfortunately, the administration has acted consistently with its demonstrated unwillingness to assert and defend US interests across a wide range of threats, such as Iran and North Korea, which, ironically, the leaked cables amply document. ... His secretary of state does not comprehend that America is the subject of the attack, his department of defense is not interested in defending us, and the president himself seems utterly indifferent to the whole affair. All of this underscores the real problem. It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them." --former UN ambassador John Bolton

A new record

2010-11-24T08:58:00.000-08:00

It's been pretty cold lately here in the Seattle area.

As expected, the temperature dropped to 14 degrees early Wednesday at Sea-Tac Airport, breaking the old record of 16 from 1985.

KING 5 Meteorologist Rich Marriott said temperatures dipped to 9 degrees in Lynnwood, 7 degrees in Parkland and -8 in Ellensberg. Other reported temperatures included Bellingham 18, Tacoma 13, Olympia 16, Vancouver 19, Yakima -11, Moses Lake -17, Spokane -6, Pullman -1.

Al Gore, call your office, if you're willing to stick your head up at all.

TSA Humor

2010-11-23T09:34:00.000-08:00

Ah, you *think* they're only jokes....

Via the Patriot Post.

Transportation Security Administration

Submitted

Obamacare is so awesome...

2010-11-15T16:23:00.000-08:00

that only 111 companies and other organizations have been issued waivers. So far. I'm sure the number will increase, but that doesn't mean Obamacare isn't everything Democrats have told us it is, right?

Unsurprisingly, many unions such as SEIU are on that list.

Also unsurprisingly, this information wasn't made readily available. After all, what we the people don't know won't hurt them....

Quote of the day

2010-11-15T12:40:00.000-08:00

Via the Patriot Post.

"While we are constantly being schooled in how insensitive we are to Muslims and how we should be bowing to the idea of a Ground Zero mega-mosque, or are being admonished for not embracing the Sharia, the state of wartime siege continues unabated. The Muslim world is under no such mandate to reach out or reciprocate. They only have to demand, and the West apologizes. ... We live in a constant state of low-grade war. And with each new Muslim attack, we lose a right. We lose a freedom. We have to adhere to some new restriction or loss of privacy. ... The general silence from the mainstream media and our governing officials on last weekend's wholesale slaughter of Christians praying in a Church is indicative of how decayed, empty, and morally inverted our leaders and media have become. The slaughter of the churchgoers in Baghdad was a crime against humanity. And there are thousands of stories of Islamic slaughter, but the lambs remain silent. Have we become so inured to Islamic jihad that human life is cheap to us as well?" --columnist Pamela Geller

Rachel Maddow gets pwned

2010-11-09T16:23:00.000-08:00

After Keith Olbermann was suspended (as it turns out, for only two days) for making undisclosed campaign contributions in violation of his employer's policy, Rachel Maddow leapt to his defense with a classic example of tu quoque. Except that it really wasn't. The single example she provided was not that of a Fox News host providing a campaign contribution but rather a clip where a Republican candidate who was a guest on Sean Hannity's show provides the URL for his website and notes that donations can be made:

People can come on our website at KasichforOhio.com, Sunday night at 6:30 we're going to talk about the damage the Obama agenda has done to us and if you have any extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way. KasichforOhio.com.

The implication is that this is equivalent to Hannity making a contribution to Kasich's campaign but it's not.

Still, Maddow thinks this one incident proves that Fox is a political organization whereas MSNBC is not. I wonder just how hard it is for her to reach such a high level of hypocrisy. I wonder if, after seeing the below video, she will provide a "correction" to her statement. Can't say as I'm going to hold my breath waiting for it.

This paragraph from the above linked blog post provides a good summation:

Rachel Maddow’s holier-than-thou smugness is best encapsulated in her claim that on Fox News, hosts allow fundraising for Republican candidates on the air. Ergo Fox is political, MSNBC isn’t. Ms Maddow’s examples of this happening on FNC? A grand total of: one. John Kasich, appearing on Hannity, gave out his website URL and encouraged donations. It’s the only example Maddow gave because it’s the one Media Matters cited. That’s called ‘journalism’.

There may have been a time when Rachel Maddow had journalistic integrity. If so, it's long gone. Watch her for her opinions if you want, but if you trust her to tell the complete truth, you are a fool.

Not really funny

2010-11-09T08:31:00.000-08:00

The Patriot Post send the following image in this week's humor email. The problem is, it's not really funny. It's more a serious commentary on religious tolerance. You know those "coexist" stickers you see on many cars, especially in cities like Seattle and San Francisco, the ones where the letters are actually the symbols of various religions and movements? This image does a pretty good job I think of explaining just why such coexistence is currently problematic. Comments?

Rights vs. obligations

2010-11-08T11:50:00.000-08:00

The First Amendment guarantees my freedom of speech. However, it does not impose an obligation on anyone to facilitate that speech, nor does it allow me to impose my opinions upon others if they don't want to hear it. In short, if I want to say something, I should get my own damn soap box, namely this blog, and I can't force you to read it.

The so-called Reverend Phelps and his odious Westboro Baptist Church have been pushing the boundaries of this division, and the argument can be made that they have crossed the line. A lawsuit is currently in progress to determine whether or not they have done so. In the meantime, a small town in Missouri have come up with their own solution to this problem.

Hundreds of residents in Weston, Mo. -- as well as people as far away as California and Australia -- rallied in support of Sgt. First Class C.J. Sadell, who died from injuries suffered during a surprise attack in Afghanistan.

The residents sought to block Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., and his followers from picketing Sadell’s funeral, according to the station

.
And how did they accomplish it?

"We got everybody here early so we could take up all the parking spots," Rebecca Rooney of Weston, Mo., told Fox4kc.com. "We did that so Mr. Phelps wouldn't have a contingency that was really close."

"I'm glad they left, but I'm sad they came," she said.

Very clever, and quite legal. Nicely done.

How the mighty has fallen

2010-11-03T17:35:00.000-07:00

Oh California, you were once the envy of the nation. Now, you're just a laughingstock. I really can't argue with anything said here:

It’s the proverbial morning after and with votes counted, California has won the Dumbest State Award in a historic landslide of monstrous proportions.

All Californians can now see Greece from their bedroom windows. No need to even go to the backyards and crane their little necks.

The author brings up something that has been on my mind since yesterday evening:

...if they keep it up they’re going to face a loud demand from the other 49 for their statehood and immediate, irreversible secession by force.

To my knowledge, there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States to kick a state out of the union so I don't think it's currently possible for that to happen. But given that California is almost certainly going to end up completely bankrupt, and will demand the rest of the nation bail out its collective ass, it may be time for an amendment adding such a provision. After yesterday, it could very well pass the House, but probably not the Senate. But that's not the only way an amendment can be proposed. I think it's high time for a good old fashioned Constitutional Convention.

Goodnight America

2010-11-02T23:42:00.000-07:00

Well it went about as well as I thought it would. Republicans will have a majority in the House and the Democrats' majority in the Senate has been significantly reduced. Also, do not overlook the importance of Republican gains in governorships and state legislatures which have occurred.

And now it's time to get some sleep. It would be nice if tomorrow I wake up to the news that Patty Murray is coming home. But I'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

How about those initiatives?

2010-11-02T23:36:00.000-07:00

Back to the state of Washington for some news on the initiatives that were on the ballot.

First, the good news:

I-1053, which restores the requirements to raise taxes initially imposed by I-960 three years ago, is passing by a large margin. This isn't surprising. We meant it when we passed 960; now the legislature has been told this in no uncertain terms.

I-1098, the income tax on top earners, is going down to a flaming defeat. Let's hope this monster never raises its head again. I wouldn't be surprised if the legislature tries to impose one within the next couple of years, however.

I-1107, which rolls back new taxes on certain food items, is winning handily. I don't care that these items are things like candy and gum, it's the principle of the thing. Good job.

I-1105, one of the initiatives that would privatize liquor sales, is being defeated handily. I ended up voting against this one as I preferred the other initiative that addressed getting the state out of the liquor business.

The not so good news:

I-1082, which would have privatized industrial insurance (i.e. workers' comp), is going down to defeat. I wasn't sure at the time I posted my recommendations but I ended up voting for it.

I-1100, my preferred initiative for privatizing liquor sales, is currently losing but not by much. Currently enough votes from King County, where the initiative was leading, remain to be counted that it could still pass.

Hey Phil, do you care about the Constitution now?

2010-11-02T22:49:00.000-07:00

Phil Hare, soon to be former Representative from Illinois, is the one who once said he didn't care about the Constitution.

I bet he's really regretting his words now.

Will they steal it from Dino a third time?

2010-11-02T20:55:00.000-07:00

The Senate race between Democrat Senator Patty Murray and Republican challenger Dino Rossi is still too close to call given that Washington State votes mostly by mail. This one could drag on for several days, maybe even longer. Depending on the outcome of other Senate races throughout the country, control of the Senate may end up depending on how this one turns out. Even if there's no doubt that Democrats will retain a majority, it will be close enough to even that one seat will still make a big difference.

I believe Dino Rossi had the 2004 gubernatorial election flat out stolen by the Democrats. When he lost again in 2008 it was by a larger margin though I suspect there was still fraud. I can't say whether it made the difference that time but I'm certainly not ruling it out completely.

Given the importance of this election and this particular race, I expect Democrats to pull out all the stops in an effort to ensure Murray returns to the Senate. Let's hope that any shenanigans that do take place are uncovered in a timely manner.

Really, California?

2010-11-02T20:43:00.000-07:00

It looks like California is sending Governor Moonbeam back to the executive mansion. Unbelievable. My lovely wife informs me that he was effectively running on the statement that, when he was governor, California had a balanced budget. That may be but the state legislature would have been most responsible for that.

Seven beautiful words...

2010-11-02T18:43:00.000-07:00

Fox News is now projecting that Republicans will gain control of the House of Representatives and gain about 60 seats. We figured this would happen but it's now become more and more likely that soon we'll hear those seven beautiful words....

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

I get goose bumps just typing it.

Now the fun really begins

2010-11-02T17:22:00.000-07:00

It's after 5:00 here on the West Coast which means polls in the East are closed or will close soon.

The one race I'll note at this time is the Senate race in Connecticut between Democrat Richard Blumenthal, who exaggerated his military service, and Republican Linda McMahon who, along with her husband, built a wildly successful business. Fox News is projecting Blumenthal to be the winner but the number of votes counted is still a small percentage of the total. I'm going to wait and see on this one.

What the Tea Party believes: Part 4

2010-11-02T08:58:00.000-07:00

The latest in Bill Whittle's "Firewall" series defines and explores the difference between political law and natural law. In the course of this presentation he also succinctly describes the real reason why the recession continues. Hint: It's not Bush's fault.

This election is likely the most important one that has occurred within my lifetime. I've already voted by mail. I urge all of you to get out and vote your conscience, though if your conscience tells you to vote for so called "progressive" candidates, increased debt, increased government, higher unemployment, continued economic stagnation, and ultimately less freedom, then I suggest you review these videos and reconsider whether you're as wise as you think you are.

Part 4: Natural Law

What it's really about

2010-11-01T09:02:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Goldberg's post at The Atlantic is short, which means I'll be including most of it here.

More on this later, but the only surprising aspect -- and obviously this is a pleasantly surprising aspect -- of the attempt to mail-bomb two Chicago-area synagogues is that the bombs were discovered so far from Chicago, one in Dubai and one in England.

Read the whole post for what he finds unsurprising. The last couple of sentences are the kicker, though, and state a clear fact that so many just don't seem to understand:

...there are many people out there who believe that al Qaeda and its fellow travelers are angry over settlements. They are not. They are angry over the continued existence of Jews.

Quotes of the Day

2010-11-01T08:44:00.000-07:00

Via the Patriot Post.

The Foundation

"[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted." --Noah Webster

Liberty

"Most people whom we elect to Congress are either ignorant of, have contempt for or are just plain stupid about the United States Constitution. ... Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same....' Here's my question to you: If one takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn't he know what he's supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to? If congressmen, judges, the president and other government officials were merely ignorant of our Constitution, there'd be hope -- ignorance is curable through education. These people in Washington see themselves as our betters and rulers. They have contempt for the limits our Constitution places on the federal government envisioned by James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who explained in the Federalist Paper 45: 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.'" --economist Walter E. Williams

Government

"The progressive assault on America continues, and their favorite whipping boy remains Arizona. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned that state's requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote, calling it 'inconsistent' with the National Voter Registration Act. In other words, a United States court considers that proving one is an American citizen in order to vote in an American election an 'undue burden.' How in the world did we come to this? ... What's the best way to destroy our democratic republic? Getting enough Americans to question the integrity of our election process has to be high on the list. And since every case ever litigated in this country with regard to voter ID has had Democrats lined up on the side where less proof is required for voting -- using the phony 'disenfranchisement' argument as an excuse -- an unmistakable pattern is emerging. A pattern which can be reduced to one simple idea: The acquisition and/or maintenance of power by any means necessary. ... Maintaining the integrity of our election process far outweighs any individual undue burdens, and the overwhelming majority of Americans know it. Those who are determined to fight such commonsense provisions aren't fooling anyone, except perhaps their fellow travelers. There is absolutely no reasonable argument to offer against making sure that Americans, and only Americans, vote in American elections -- none. One more compelling reason for decent Americans to get out and vote ... Tuesday. Maybe the most important one of all." --columnist Arnold Ahlert

Re: The Left

"Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's the Democrats' coping mechanism for midterm election voter fraud. Faced with multiple reports of early voting irregularities and election shenanigans across the country, left-wing groups are playing dumb, deaf and blind. Voter fraud? What voter fraud? More cunningly, these organizations are seeking to marginalize complaints about election integrity by casting citizen watchdog efforts as racist 'scare tactics.' Echoing President Obama's message to the Democratic faithful on the campaign trail, they are accusing political opponents of suppressing the votes of minorities and the poor. On Tuesday, The New York Times quoted a liberal voting rights advocate, Wendy R. Weiser, wringing her hands over individual Americans taking clean elections seriously: 'Private efforts to police the polls create a real risk of vote suppression, regardless of their intent,' said Weiser, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. 'People need to know that any form of discrimination, intimidation or challenge to voters without adequate basis is illegal or improper.' ... Funny. For the past two years, Democratic leaders have had nothing to say about the militant New Black Panther Party goons who took it upon themselves to police a Philadelphia voting booth in 2008 wielding billy clubs and shouting anti-white slurs to suppress votes. Now, they're treating citizen election monitors as if they are the jack-booted thugs. ... Silence dissent. Criminalize watchdogs. Whitewash fraud. Discourage grassroots engagement. Deny, deny, deny. These are the signature tactics of the left in the age of Obama. On November 2, Americans get their chance to say: Enough." --columnist Michelle Malkin

Political Futures

"Based on the sheer volume of usage, President Obama's teleprompter must love the phrase 'our American values.' The phrase comes in a close third after 'Let me be clear' and 'I will call you out on that.' Since he uses the phrase so often, we should try to understand what he is saying. ... The untethered progressive values of hope, change, tolerance, peace, unity, etc. come to mind. Presumably, the 'ideals' and 'values' of the left somehow have the power to bind together a country of citizens. ... When Obama touts 'our American values,' odds are that he is advancing their very opposites. When our American values call for self-preservation, Obama calls for terrorists' rights. When our American values call for traditional morality, Obama appoints someone like Kevin Jennings as 'safe school czar' for children. When our American values call for border enforcement, Obama sees millions of potential Democrat voters. And so on. The ironies of the Obama administration are like a series of never-ending waves crashing upon us. ... The sad reality is that a man was somehow elected who is effectively a foreigner to our real American values. Our quintessential American value, liberty, means being free from central control. Of course, that's the very antithesis to the ideology of the man occupying the White House." --columnist Monte Kuligowski

For the Record

"Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day. It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is 'the most important election in our lifetime' or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War. The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America. ... And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections. In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory. Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

Culture

"The fate of [NPR's Juan] Williams reminds us that Americans have developed two personas -- one public and politically correct, the other private. Mix the two and big trouble ensues. Here are some reminders about what to shut up about. Don't discuss the deficit. Instead, call borrowing 'stimulus.' Trillions are not much different from billions. Debt can be paid back with more borrowing and someone else's higher taxes. Ignore the lessons of Greece and California. To appear noble, call for more unemployment benefits, free medical care and more entitlements. To sound cruel, talk about borrowing to pay for them. Keep silent about Social Security and Medicare. If the system is insolvent, it cannot be because we are living longer, retiring earlier, often taking out more than we paid into the pot, abusing disability provisions, or facing an aging and soon-to-be-shrinking population. Instead, rail at fat cats who need to pay more payroll taxes, and at wasteful programs like defense that can be cut to ensure more for the elderly and needy. The checks will always come in time, and 'they' will always pay for them. ... The NAACP has accused the Tea Party of racist views. The anger over high taxes, debt and big government warrants more concern among the Beltway's black leadership than exploring the causes of inordinately high incidence of crime, incarceration and one-parent homes, and low high school graduation rates. Whatever one's private views, groupspeak requires that answers are found outside, not inside, the black community -- and demand more programs and more federal money. ... We do not quite know how Americans will vote [this] week, in part because citizens fear to talk openly about their concerns and instead employ groupspeak. We suspect that in the privacy of the voting booth, they may prove angrier and more frustrated than we think." --historian Victor Davis Hanson

The Gipper

"So, if I could ask you just one last time: Tomorrow, when mountains greet the dawn, would you go out there and win one for the Gipper?" --Ronald Reagan

The Last Word

"Most elections are about particular policies, particular scandals or particular personalities. But these issues don't mean as much this year -- not because they are not important, but because this election is a crossroads election, one that can decide what path this country will take for many years to come. Runaway 'stimulus' spending, high unemployment and ObamaCare are all legitimate and important issues. It is just that freedom and survival are more important. For all its sweeping and scary provisions, ObamaCare is not nearly as important as the way it was passed. If legislation can become laws passed without either the public or the Congress knowing what is in those laws, then the fundamental principle of a free, self-governing people is completely undermined. ... Other actions and proposals by this administration likewise represent moves in the direction of arbitrary rule, worthy of a banana republic, with only a mocking facade of freedom. These include threats against people who simply choose to express opinions counter to administration policy, such as a warning to an insurance company that there would be 'zero tolerance' for 'misinformation' when the insurance company said that ObamaCare would create costs that force up premiums. Zero tolerance for the right of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution? ... This election is a crossroads, because either [Barack Obama's] power will be curbed by depriving him of his huge Congressional majorities or he will continue on a road that jeopardizes both our freedom and our survival." --economist Thomas Sowell

Equal justice for all

2010-10-30T06:47:00.000-07:00

Rob McKenna, a Republican, is the Washington State Attorney General. He has been vilified by many, some of whom I know personally, for daring - daring - to join the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He has been accused of doing so solely for partisan reasons. Well, if he's so partisan, how come he's doing this?

Attorney General Rob McKenna sued a Seattle political consultant Friday, alleging the firm deliberately concealed the source of money used in its campaign to oust state Sen. Jean Berkey, D- Everett, in the primary.

The eight-page lawsuit against Lisa MacLean and her firm, Moxie Media, contends she “acted to conceal the true participants” behind the mailers and phone calls opposing Berkey and supporting a conservative Republican opponent.

Consider, if you will, what would likely happen were this to occur in New York State. The Attorney General there is Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. Do you think he would take the same action? I can't say with certainty that he wouldn't, but I highly doubt he would.

Rob McKenna is suing over so-called ObamaCare because it's the right thing to do. And he's suing over the fraud in this election for the same reason. He will continue to receive my vote for this or any other office as long as he continues to demonstrate this quality.

A skeptic, not a denier

2010-10-22T23:05:00.000-07:00

Warren Meyer, writing for Forbes, provides the most cogent explanation I've yet seen for why many of us are skeptical regarding anthropogenic global warming, or AGW. He outlines a very important distinction between being skeptical that any sort of climate change is occurring, and being skeptical that we are heading for some sort of global climate disaster.

It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.

What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic’s position requires understanding something about the alarmists’ case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.

The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number – it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half – most skeptics, alarmists and even the UN’s IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.

But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.

Back in my college days, I took a class on systems of linear differential equations. I've long since forgotten the details but one of the practical applications was to model systems. The solution of a system of linear differential equations was an equation whose graph depended on starting conditions. For modeling systems, the horizontal coordinate was usually time and the vertical coordinate was some value such as population. Generally, these fell into two types. The first was a convergent solution. Different starting conditions would produce graphs that, as the value for time increased, would converge to a specific value.

The second was a divergent solution. If the starting conditions were altered, then the graphs would diverge away from the value. For example, if the starting condition was low enough, the graph could plunge toward zero. If it was high enough, it could skyrocket toward infinity. Let's say that the system modeled the population of a particular species. If the starting value was too low, the population wouldn't be self-sustaining and would die out. Too high, and overpopulation would occur.

The essence of the final paragraph of the excerpt above is that the second theory predicts a divergent solution; in this case the vertical coordinate is temperature. Adding CO2 artificially alters the starting condition of the graph which skyrockets to a high temperature value. Skeptics, based on historical analysis of temperatures and other factors, think it much more likely that the solution is convergent, or at least not fully divergent.

My thoughts on the Juan Williams affair

2010-10-22T22:49:00.000-07:00

When even Whoopi Goldberg says NPR was wrong to fire Juan Williams, you know a line has been crossed.

I believe a private company or other employer should be able to choose who it wants to work for it. If an employee is acting against the best interests of the employer, then the employer should be able to terminate that employee.

However, NPR, and by extension its parent the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is not a private company. A small but non-zero percentage of its operating costs are paid for by the federal government; in other words, the taxpayers. Us. The argument can legitimately be made that it should be held to a different standard.

In my opinion, the answer is simple. The federal government should do what many have called on it to do and stop funding the CPB in any way. Let it compete on its own merits as a corporation completely separate from government. Let it, with its clear liberal bias, try to do better than Air America did without me having to support it. Then, it can decide who should work for it or not as it sees fit.

What the Tea Party really believes

2010-10-22T18:55:00.000-07:00

It really is very simple. I know many of you are afraid of the "racist," and "extreme Right Wing" Tea Party but that just means you've been watching too much Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Bill Whittle, who excels at explaining simple concepts so that even the elite intelligentsia can understand them, is producing a series of videos which lay out just what the Tea Party is all about. At this time, he has three available. I've embedded them below. As I become aware of any more, I'll post links to them here. You can also find them at Bill's YouTube Channel.

Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

Part 3: Wealth Creation

Review of the 2011 Chevrolet Volt

2010-10-21T11:20:00.000-07:00

Gary Gastelu reviews the new Chevrolet Volt for Fox News. Short form: It's a good car that performs well. If you drive it correctly, you will save considerably on operation costs vs. the Toyota Prius, although it does cost quite a bit more to purchase.

Something to note is that the way the drivetrain works is not actually what I originally heard. My original understanding was that the internal combustion engine was not mechanically coupled to the wheels in any way. It only served to run a generator which fed electricity into the electric drive system when the batteries drained to a certain point. However, according to the review, the IC engine actually does have a mechanical coupling to the wheels which engages under certain circumstances.

In brief, the Volt’s powertrain has three main components: a main electric motor, a smaller electric motor/generator, and the engine. All of which are connected by a series of clutches and a planetary gearbox that takes the place of a traditional transmission. But, unlike grief, there are four stages that the Volt goes through while you’re driving it.

Start off with a full charge and the motor moves the Volt, getting an assist from the otherwise idle motor/generator from time to time under certain conditions. Deplete your battery, and the gasoline engine kicks in, coupling to the motor/generator to create electricity and, under similar certain conditions, send some mechanical torque through the gearbox to help propel the car.

Fear and Loathing in the White House

2010-10-18T17:25:00.000-07:00

Because the thought that Americans are about to make a rational decision in a couple weeks is simply unfathomable, it must be because of fear:

In his remarks at a Democratic fundraiser in Massachusetts Saturday evening, President Barack Obama said that Americans’ fear and frustration” are to blame for an intensely competitive midterm election season favoring Republican candidates.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we‘re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” According to Politico, Obama blamed the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.

On the contrary, Mr. President, it is precisely because many Americans have regained the ability to "think clearly" that Republicans are predicted to make large gains. Once again we see the arrogance and elitism break through the mask (which was never very thick to begin with). Anyone who opposes the policies of higher taxes, increased useless spending, and greater dependence on Government is obviously not thinking straight.

My recommendations for the 2010 Washington State Initiatives

2010-10-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

Here is how I intend to vote on the slate of initiatives that will appear on the Washington State 2010 general election ballot and a brief explanation why.

Initiative 1053: Yes
In 2007, the voters of Washington passed I-960 which made it more difficult for the legislature to raise taxes. To do so required either a two-thirds majority in the State House and Senate, or a simple majority in both houses followed by a simple majority of the people. In Washington, an Initiative can be overridden after two years by a simple majority of both houses. This happened earlier this year which came as no surprise given Democrats hold majorities in both houses.

I-1053 will undo that override and restore those requirements. In today's economy, everyone has to tighten their belts, I know I sure have. The state government is no exception.

Initiative 1082: Leaning Yes
Supporters note that what 1082 allows is already in place in 46 other states. Also, I believe that increasing the role of the market in just about anything is a good idea. I'm going to research this one some more just to make sure but at this time I'm probably going to vote yes on 1082.

Initiative 1098: No, Hell No
Washington already has a high state sales tax. This would be an additional tax on top of it. I understand that income taxes have advantages and disadvantages when compared to a sales tax. If an income tax were to be implemented, it should be accompanied by an elimination of the state sales tax. But that's a discussion for another day.

Some of you may respond, "Yeah, but this income tax only affects rich individuals making over $200,000 per year and couples making over $400,000 per year." At first, yes, this will be the case. However, once the income tax is on the books, eventually the legislature (assuming continued Democrat control, and perhaps even if not) will decide that revenue isn't sufficient and will lower that minimum. Eventually, it will be extended to everyone (though I expect there will still be a minimum based on the poverty level). If you don't think this will happen, you are, quite frankly, a fool.

Initiative 1100: Yes
Initiative 1105: Probably No
Quite simply, the state should not be in the retail business. Period. Both of these initiatives get the state out of the liquor selling business. Based on my understanding, how 1100 does it is a bit simpler. It also appears to favor the retailers whereas 1105 favors liquor distributors. Either of them is preferable to the current system but at this time I'm going with 1100.

Initiative 1107: Yes
It will repeal sales tax changes that the legislature made earlier this year. Even though the items the new taxes applied to, namely candy, soda, and bottled water, are items that are not necessary it's still a new tax and it will have a deleterious effect on the economy. The taxes on soda and bottled water are supposedly temporary but you know they probably won't be. Again, the state must learn to live within its means just like the rest of us.

Well it's that time again

2010-10-16T16:26:00.000-07:00

The November election is weeks away so I'm going to dust off this blog and try to post more-or-less regularly as we approach zero-hour and then beyond. Maybe I'll even succeed.

Test post

2009-10-12T13:41:00.001-07:00

Ignore this.

The hypocrisy of the Left, part the zillionth

2008-12-08T10:43:00.000-08:00

Quote provided by The Patriot Post:

"Barack Obama has made few policy pronouncements since his November election. But he and his wife have made a personal decision that is rich with policy ramifications: the choice of a school for their daughters. During the campaign, Obama said he supports charter schools, which are public schools that are free of some bureaucratic constraints, but that he opposes private school choice, because it doesn't work. Turns out it does work for the Obamas, who determined that no public or charter school in the nation's capital would be the 'best fit' for their daughters. Instead they chose Sidwell Friends, an exclusive private school that counts Chelsea Clinton among its alumni. No one should begrudge the Obamas for choosing the best possible school for their children. But we should begrudge Barack Obama for vowing to deny such choices to low-income parents. As Polly Williams, the state representative who gave birth to Milwaukee's school choice program put it, 'The president shouldn't be the only person who lives in public housing who gets to send his kids to private schools.'" --Hoover Institution research fellow Clint Bolick

Your new god

2008-11-29T16:28:00.000-08:00

Seen in an email signature:

"Rosa Parks sat so that Martin Luther King could walk.
Martin Luther King walked so Barack Obama could run.
Barack Obama ran so our children could fly.”
-- Unknown participant in the 2008 Presidential Election

And yet we're told race wasn't an issue. It shouldn't have been, but it clearly was for some people.

Oh the quote is very inspirational on the surface. And I do think there's truth in it. But there is also something else. Look at the last line. The best word I can think of to describe it is worshipful.
The implication is that Obama, through the power of the One True Government™, will enable and help our children to succeed.

Whether they want it to or not.

Love Affair

2008-11-29T09:55:00.000-08:00

Ah, how sweet.

It started with the fist bump seen ’round the world. Soon there were stories of rousing family Scrabble battles and date nights, in spite of election mayhem. Then President-elect Barack Obama referred to his wife Michelle as “the love of my life” during his election night victory speech, embracing her tightly and kissing her afterwards, while millions of people worldwide watched.

“They took a moment to face each other, to kiss and hold one another, regardless of the magnitude and spectacle of the night,” said Camille Washington, a Bay Area blogger on Soulbounce.com, a music and culture site. “That says a lot.”

The Obamas represent a welcome change as an openly affectionate and romantic couple for many Americans. Some experts say that the soon-to-be first couple embody the ideal healthy relationship, and that they can stir up love around the country. The New York Daily News even predicted a baby boom attributed to election night friskiness inspired by the Obamas.

John and Cindy McCain love each other as well. But if McCain had won the election, do you think for a minute that anything like this would have been published about them? Of course not. More likely, it would have been some article that purported to discuss what it's like for them to be married but would be a subtle, or not so subtle, criticism of the fact that Cindy brought a lot of wealth to the marriage. It would have glossed over her extensive charity work, assuming it was even mentioned at all.

It continues

2008-11-19T14:22:00.001-08:00

I just received this press release from the Second Amendment Foundation.

HOLDER NOMINATION SIGNALS OBAMA’S TRUE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS AGENDA

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Eric Holder for the post of attorney general of the United States sends an “alarming signal” to gun owners about how the Barack Obama administration will view individual gun rights, as affirmed this year by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right,” noted SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “He has supported national handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would have curtailed legitimate gun shows.

“This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation’s top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind,” he observed.

Holder’s nomination, like the appointment of anti-gun Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, tells American gun owners that Obama’s campaign claims supporting the Second Amendment were “empty rhetoric,” Gottlieb stated.

“America’s 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration,” Gottlieb said. “Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama’s acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate.

“Barack Obama vigorously portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a man who supports gun ownership,” Gottlieb concluded, “but now that he has won the election, he is surrounding himself with people who are avowed gun prohibitionists. What better indication of what to expect from Barack Obama as president than the people he is selecting to lead his administration? This isn’t a roster of devoted public servants. It’s a rogue’s gallery of extremists who have labored to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.”

Hiatus

2008-11-19T09:47:00.000-08:00

Since the election, I've been pretty quiet. I probably will be through the holidays, though I imagine I'll post something every now and then.

Of course, come January, all hell will be breaking loose and I'll be here watching it happen.

More revisionism?

2008-11-10T16:51:00.000-08:00

The page on Obama's transition website that I referred to in my last post, the one where he details his Urban Policy that includes gun control measures, has been removed. The URL, http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/, now returns a simple message that the page is not available.

Is the page not available because:

It's yet another attempt to flush something down the memory hole?
The President-elect has changed his mind?
The page is being altered and will return once the changes are complete?

You're guess is as good as mine.

And so it begins

2008-11-08T15:21:00.001-08:00

Updated: see below.

The following comes as absolutely no surprise. I suppose I thought he’d wait a short while but that is not to be. The Democrats are already drunk with power and they’re moving fast.

Item the first: The disarmament of the American people

On the official transition website of Barack Obama, President-Elect, (http://change.gov) he lays out his Urban Policy. Among other things is this:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

The best analysis of this policy that I've read can be found here. It's not the only one, of course.

This will only be the beginning. The market is already reacting with sales of guns of all types going through the roof and stocks are being quickly depleted. The steps listed above will be just the first salvo in an all-out effort to render the Second Amendment meaningless. The decision in the Heller case will act as a roadblock but expect any Supreme Court justices nominated to be amenable to overturning it if not eager to do so.

Item the second: The new conscription

I now point to the America Serves page at Obama's transition website (http://change.gov/americaserves/) containing the overview for the new plan for "service". Before I continue, though, a funny thing has happened. The page has been changed since it was first brought to my attention.

Of course, this isn't the first time that the Obama website has been changed. See here and here. Welcome to the new revisionism, and remember that it's a favored tactic of Communism. Yes, I went there. I'm sure I will again.

The GeekWithA.45 has the original text which I reproduce here with his emphasis intact:

America Serves

"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to
require
50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

He also notes the irony of the situation in the face of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I expect that, though the text has changed, the plan has not.

The ever-irascible Kim du Toit has something to say about it:

Wow. If I didn’t know better, I’d have called those things by their proper names: Obamajugend, Arbeitsdienst and Volkssturm.

As one of those “over age 55” types, allow me to make this suggestion to Comrade Urkel: you want me to work; you pay me. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

And that goes for my kids, too. If they want to work in soup kitchens or for church charities, they’ll do that. If they don’t want to, you’re not going to force them. Or you’ll have to force them over my dead body, and over those of several of your Gruppenfuehrers.

The GeekWithA.45 is much more to the point:

You. Shall. Not. Teach. My. Children. To. Be. Slaves.

Ever.

Mark my words: This is just the beginning.

Update: Item the third: The biggest heist in history

Of course, in the end, it's always about the money:

Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

This comes via Nicki at The Liberty Zone who has some rather choice comments:

Confiscate. Appropriate by the government. Deprive of property. Steal.

This is no longer a pithy little catchphrase about helping everyone. This is theft, pure and simple. This is YOUR government, whom YOU elected, telling YOU that they will take what YOU earned away from you, take away your freedom of choice as to what to do with your property, give it to an inept government bureaucracy to mishandle and hand out to those who haven't earned it. This isn't funny, and it isn't noble. It's criminal.

Good job guys. I dare you to justify all of these, and all the other infringements on our liberty that are sure to follow. Go on, I'm listening.

This pretty much sums it up

2008-11-07T10:01:00.000-08:00

From today's Patriot Post digest:

The Democrats' large majorities no doubt mean America is in for at least two years of full-steam-ahead socialism. Priorities include raising taxes on everyone (not just the wealthy, despite their promises to the contrary), even more severe environmental regulations, a policy of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan and reviving the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to stifle conservative objections to any of the above.

On the other hand, Republicans were beaten because they deserved it. Eight years of spending and generally behaving like drunken Democrats convinced Americans to vote for the real thing instead of the imitation. It's safe to say that "compassionate conservatism" was an unmitigated disaster. If Republicans get back to their conservative roots, they will not wander in the political wilderness for another generation.

The One Ring

2008-11-05T16:08:00.000-08:00

One of the analogies making the rounds of the Intarwebz is that, with the election of Barack Obama, it feels (there's that word) like "Frodo has finally destroyed the Ring."

Let's hope so, because I fear that a better analogy might be that Faramir did not let Frodo and Sam go in Ithilien. Instead, he carried the Ring to Minas Tirith. There the people of the White City surrendered the Ring to the Witch King of Angmar hoping that Sauron would stop his invasion of the West.

It doesn't take much to imagine how that would turn out.

Reactions

2008-11-05T09:53:00.000-08:00

Here's a collection of reactions to yesterday's events.

The GeekWithA.45 realized something yesterday.

Any man's, group's or nation's right to claim that America in an inherently racist nation ceases today, and is lost forever.

The ever-irascible Kim duToit lays out just what kind of Change™ the American people have just voted for.

The inestimable Steven den Beste says it's not the end of the world. He even lists some positives:

1. It is no longer possible for anyone to deny that the MSM is heavily biased. The MSM have been biased for decades but managed an illusion of fairness. That is no longer possible; the MSM have squandered their credibility during this campaign. They'll never get that credibility back again.

2. Since the Democrats got nearly everything they hoped for in this campaign, they'll have no excuses and will have to produce. They'll have to reveal their true agenda -- or else make clear that they don't really have any beyond gaining power.

3. Every few decades the American people have to be reminded that peace only comes with strength. The next four years will be this generation's lesson.

He also has some predictions. Here's a partial list:

1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.

2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.

3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.

4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)

The Wall Street Journal, before the results were known, noted that We Could Be In for a Lurch to the Left. It discusses why the Democrats will be much more likely to enact liberal policies now than they were when they enjoyed Congressional majorities under Carter and Clinton:

The most significant change is in the ideological makeup of the Democratic majorities. In the Carter and Clinton eras, there were dozens of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress, a disproportionate number of them committee chairs. Now the Democratic majorities in both houses are composed almost uniformly of liberals. Those few who aren't, including the tiny but heralded gang of moderates elected to the House in 2006, usually knuckle under on liberal issues. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bosses them around like hired help.

And it also reminds us that the media has played and will continue to play a large role:

There's still another change in Washington that shouldn't be overlooked: a mainstream media that's become reflexively liberal. It's true the national press corps has been monopolized by liberals for years. The difference now is that the media's liberal tendencies are unleashed and permeate reporting on national affairs.

Finally, the inestimable Bill Whittle notes the Historic nature of the occasion and sums up my thoughts rather well:

When he is inaugurated, President Obama will be my president. He cannot be otherwise. I will disagree with him at just about every turn, likely, and that is my right and duty as an American. However, in an emergency he will have my unqualified support, and I will always wish him wisdom and hope that he may do what is best for this great country of ours. I do not wish – I do not ever wish – to see my country suffer so that I may gain political leverage. If at this same time four years from now, President Obama has acted in such a way to make us more prosperous, more safe and more free, it will be my greatest pleasure to admit I was wrong about the man. I look forward to that day. I hope to see it come to pass.

Regardless of all of that, we have together achieved something noble and magnificent tonight. We have, after a long and hazardous journey, taken the final step in erasing the one real stain on our nations history. That war is not over, but it is won. And we may all take a great deal of pride in that.

Here we go

2008-11-04T12:49:00.000-08:00

I could write a long post about why you should vote a certain way, but I won't. I'm too tired. All I'm going to say is may God help us all.

His catastrophic plan

2008-10-31T13:41:00.000-07:00

Who do you think of when you read these song lyrics?

Excerpt:

He'll wrap you in his arms,
tell you that you've been a good boy
He'll rekindle all the dreams
it took you a lifetime to destroy
He'll reach deep into the hole,
heal your shrinking soul
Hey buddy, you know you're
never ever coming back
He's a god, he's a man,
he's a ghost, he's a guru
They're whispering his name
through this disappearing land
But hidden in his coat
is a red right hand

You ain't got no money?
He'll get you some
You ain't got no car? He'll get you one
You ain't got no self-respect,
you feel like an insect
Well don't you worry buddy,
cause here he comes
Through the ghettos and the barrio
and the bowery and the slum
A shadow is cast wherever he stands
Stacks of green paper in his
red right hand

And the waters shall recede....

2008-10-31T13:14:00.000-07:00

Talk about the cult of personality....

It's rare to see someone so in the grip of religious fervor.

Classic

2008-10-28T16:44:00.000-07:00

I wasn't aware of this, but Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske had his Glock 9mm pistol (probably a G17) stolen from his car a while back. The Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms just put out this press release. I couldn't help but laugh and I've included it here in its entirety:

CCRKBA SAYS CHIEF’S MISSING GUN A BIGGER THREAT TO SAFETY THAN MOST FIREARMS

For Immediate Release: October 28, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, quoted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today claiming that more guns in the community does not deter crime should remember that his stolen gun is out there posing a greater threat to public safety than firearms belonging to typical law-abiding gun owners.

So said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a Bellevue-based grassroots civil rights organization. CCRKBA still has a reward for the recovery of Kerlikowske’s stolen 9mm Glock pistol, taken from his city-owned car that was parked on a downtown street almost four years ago.

Kerlikowske, in New York preparing for a gun control debate on National Public Radio, is quoted by the newspaper arguing that research is “clear” that the more guns in the community, “the more that are in circulation for criminals to get their hands on.”

“That’s a subject on which Kerlikowske should be an authority,” Gottlieb observed. “He carelessly left his loaded pistol where someone could steal it, and that gun has never been recovered. How dare this man start preaching about the pratfalls of gun ownership when he can’t even keep track of his own handgun?

“In fact,” he continued, “research by Prof. John Lott and others indicates quite the opposite, that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens do have a deterrent effect on violent crime.

“But fact apparently doesn’t matter to the chief, who has been an ardent proponent of restrictive gun laws ever since he arrived in Washington State. Evidently to his dislike, gun ownership is constitutionally protected here,” Gottlieb said. “He has continually lobbied on behalf of Washington CeaseFire, using his position of authority to attack the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners across the Evergreen State. No doubt he will be helping lead the charge to erode Washington’s long-standing state preemption law in Olympia in January, so his boss, anti-gun Mayor Greg Nickels, can push to disarm law-abiding gun owners living in Seattle.

“We have a better idea,” Gottlieb concluded. “Chief Kerlikowske should spend every waking hour looking for his stolen gun, instead of trying to steal the gun rights of the citizens he was hired to serve and protect. Who protects those citizens from the thief who is now armed with Kerlikowske’s gun? Law-abiding armed citizens can take far better care of themselves than Chief ‘Empty Holster’ Kerlikowske.”

Recreational drug use

2008-10-23T16:49:00.000-07:00

Via Misha comes this story over at SkyNews talking about the recent release of the footage of John McCain being interviewed as a POW. As Misha points out, the article has this amazing paragraph:

The video portrays the Republican as a hero but the message may be tarnished as he is filmed smoking a cigarette.

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. He was shot down in October, 1967. In those days, the health risks of smoking, while suspected, were not nearly as well known and understood. Many, if not most, in the military smoked. And, after all, it's not like he did "a little blow" like someone else I could mention.

What the real story *should* be is not that he was smoking, but that he quit. But that doesn't correspond with the agenda. Nor does reporting that Obama only recently quit himself, though not really.

What the media won't report, part the Nth

2008-10-23T13:30:00.000-07:00

I know I'm a bit late to this but Joe Biden sure is an entertaining fellow. Here we see him displaying his prodigious skills as a singer and dancer.

Okay, that's no big deal. He's just a guy enjoying himself in the great outdoors and it's okay if he has a couple beers or other adult beverages as long as he drinks responsibly.

However, take a look at this one.

Can you imagine what would happen if Sarah Palin was so clearly sloshed at an official campaign event? It would be on the front page of the New York Times, hell it would be the front page! It would be all over MSNBC, CNN, AP, you name it. It'd even be on Fox News though they might actually play the above video to balance it out.

But have we heard anything about it other than on conservative websites and talk radio? Nope, nada, zip, zero. No surprise, either.

Predictable results?

2008-10-21T14:13:00.000-07:00

Almost exactly four years ago, I speculated as to what would happen if Bush won the election:

Should Bush win the election, I believe there will be considerable civil unrest, probably outright rioting. I think it likely there will be blood and almost certainly considerable property damage. This is on top of the flood of lawsuits that will certainly be filed by Democrats and their lawyers in a nationwide effort to overturn the results of the election.

Thankfully it turned out I was wrong, though that may be due in part to the fact that Bush not only received more electoral votes, he also received an outright majority of the popular vote. There were the expected claims of fraud and voter intimidation but they didn't really go anywhere.

But if that election was contentious, it's got nothing on the one we're about to experience. Given the extremely partisan nature of this campaign and, yes, the issue of race, I predict that a McCain victory will result in significant civil unrest and possibly rioting on some scale.

Saying that riots may occur, by the way, is not racist as it is based solely on previous experience with racially charged events. Besides in this case, again based previous experience, I don't think that the rioting will be at all limited to people of any particular ethnicity.

Bad Taste

2008-10-21T13:22:00.000-07:00

The subject line pretty accurately describes what Democrats still feel after the 2000 election. Although Al Gore won the popular vote, by a slim margin of one half of one percent, George Bush received the most votes in the Electoral College and, after a contentious series of recounts and a decision by the Supreme Court, was confirmed as President of the United States. Unsurprisingly, many Democrats (and probably some Republicans as well) called for the elimination of the Electoral College and a change to direct election of the President by total national popular vote.

We didn't hear about it as much after the 2004 election because George Bush received an outright majority of the popular vote (something Bill Clinton never did, only receiving a plurality in his election wins). Therefore it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome.

Once again, as we approach the 2008 Presidential Election, the issue of whether or not the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness is being raised. The article discusses what effect it would have on how candidates would campaign, and some possible negative effects. In the penultimate paragraph, the author states:

If Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win on Election Day, it might erase the Democrats’ unpleasant memories of 2000 and lessen the momentum for scrapping the Electoral College.

True, especially if it turns out that McCain receives a plurality or majority of the popular vote. If that happens, expect Democrats to praise the foresight of the authors of the Constitution and sing the praises of the Electoral College.

Colin Powell

2008-10-20T17:32:00.000-07:00

I'm not really that surprised that Retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama. Misha sums it up pretty well:

Really. Anybody surprised by Colin Powell’s endorsement of the Obamessiah please raise your hands. Then kindly go to the back of the class and think about it for a bit.

His Majesty never cared for Powell in the first place, apart from his service to his country, of course. He was an inept Sec-of-State and his politics were always, to put it gently, dubious. So what could possibly convince somebody who never really did anything suggesting that he was a conservative in any sense of the word to go ahead and endorse a radical Marxist empty suit with zero experience?

I don't necessarily agree with Misha's conclusion that Powell is either falsely denying that race is not a factor or is an opportunist seeking a position in the Obama administration. I think he genuinely made the decision for the reasons he states.

However, I do think that the reasons he states are questionable.

Selection of Sara Palin: Powell stated that McCain's selection of Palin as running mate made him question McCain's judgment. From the article:

"I don’t believe [Palin] is ready to be president of the United States," Powell said flatly. By contrast, Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, "is ready to be president on day one."

What he has failed to realize is that Palin actually has more experience than Obama himself. She has been a mayor and a governor, both elected executive positions. Obama has not held any elected executive positions, nor been in any executive position at all with the possible exception of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And lest we forget, it failed utterly in its stated mission. (Whether its stated mission was its actual mission is another matter entirely.) In fact it could be argued that Palin has more executive experience than McCain and Biden as well.

Republican attacks on Obama: Powell also said that he was disturbed by the "personal" attacks on Obama. Again, from the article:

Powell also told NBC’s Tom Brokaw that he was "troubled" by Republicans' personal attacks on Obama, especially false intimations that Obama was Muslim and the recent focus on Obama’s alleged connections to William Ayers, a co-founder of the radical 60's Weather Underground.

Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.

When it comes to personal attacks, the Republicans ain't got nothin' on the Democrats. But let's address these particular examples. First of all, in my experience, any intimation that Obama is a Muslim has always been slapped down. In an article at the Huffington Post, Jon Soltz writes:

"Indeed, while John McCain has corrected a woman who directly told him that Obama was "an Arab," the campaign has also given those who believe Obama is a "secret Muslim" a wink and a nod, by continually using phrases like "he doesn't see America like the rest of us," and tying him to "terrorists."

Note that Soltz is not quoting Powell, but expressing his own opinion here.

What I see happening is that it's not the Republicans that are saying he's a Muslim but the Democrats and their supporters who are assuming that's what the Republicans are saying. Contrast this with the much more obvious playing of the race card on the part of Obama and other Democrats. Seems to be a classic case of projection here.

And as far as Obama being a lifelong Christian, Powell appears to have forgotten the nature of the church Obama attended for 20 years until he was forced to disassociate himself from it for political expediency. The form of Christianity that Obama willingly exposed himself and his family to for two decades is not one that I want to be a part of. You don't sit in that pew for that many sermons, coming back Sunday after Sunday, willingly and knowingly listening to the hatred and insanity coming from that pulpit, without it having some effect on your worldview.

And as for the recent focus on Obama's association with Bill Ayers, if McCain had a similar association in his recent past, it would be all over the news and would probably sink his campaign utterly. But Obama gets a pass. The thing is that we don't think Obama is a terrorist, nor that he endorses such activities. What his association with Ayers, and his disingenuous attempts to hide it, does is bring into question Obama's judgment and honesty.

Powell has the right to endorse whatever candidate he chooses. I respect his accomplishments as a military commander and thank him for his service to this country. But that does not mean that I consider him infallible. Despite all his fine qualities, he is capable of error. His endorsement of Obama is notable, but it is, after all, the opinion of one man. If we disagree with his reasons, we can and should say so, and his stature does not mean we are wrong.

Quotes of the day

2008-10-20T11:19:00.000-07:00

“If the most productive members of society—those who create the majority of jobs—are taxed we will have fewer jobs. It’s the old rule that if you tax something you get less of it. While Obama is killing jobs by taxing the productive, he proposes to ‘renegotiate’ NAFTA and other trade deals thus putting the one bright corner of our economy, the export sector, in his crosshairs. Obama has a million schemes to redistribute the wealth of the top five percent, (who by the way, already pay more than 50 percent of the taxes in our steeply progressive system). He wants to provide college for ‘anyone who wants to go and agrees to perform community service,’ and community development block grants, and childcare, and universal pre-school, and housing, and retirement and on and on. He seems determined that more people will ride in the wagon than pull it.” —Mona Charen

“Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 percent of the American people will get a tax cut. You’d think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than 6-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you’re wondering why Obama didn’t simply announce that under his plan 112 percent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they’d really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 percent it is...[O]ur Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: ‘95.’ It’s the words ‘percent’ immediately following that are wrong: that’s a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut. Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting’s tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: ‘It’s not that I want to punish your success,’ he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. ‘I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.’ In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there’s another typing error: that ‘you’ should read ‘I, Barack.’ ‘You’ will have no say in it.” —Mark Steyn

Editor's note: Considering that far fewer than 95% of Americans actually pay taxes, saying that 95% will receive a tax cut actually means that a considerable percentage will actually be receiving checks. This is known as income redistribution, one of the cornerstones of socialism.

Also, keep in mind that the President doesn't make tax law, Congress does. Still, if Obama is elected and has a compliant Democrat-controlled Congress, especially if they should achieve the magic number of 60 Senate seats, well I for one will have no choice but to welcome our new Socialist Overlords.

Quote of the day

2008-10-13T11:05:00.000-07:00

In comments to this post by The GeekWithA.45, one commenter had this to say:

He (Obama) is, as we say in Texas, a post turtle. If you see a turtle balanced on top of a fence post near some country road, you know the following: he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin with.

The "right" to health care

2008-10-09T15:19:00.000-07:00

The GeekWithA.45 links to and comments on the latest video from Bill Whittle wherein he talks about whether or not we as Americans have a right to health care. Bill also expands on the content of the video and the response to it at his website, and provides a link to the text version at NRO for those who are unable to watch the video or prefer reading it.

After reading through the comments to Bill's post, I understood that simply saying we don't have a right to health care, or many other things, isn't quite accurate. We actually do have a right to health care, shelter, big-screen TV's, etc. We have a right to them in the sense that we cannot be prevented from obtaining them if we want to and are able to.

What we do not have are entitlements to these things. We cannot demand that they be given to us for free. What Barack Obama means when he says health care should be a right is really that it should be an entitlement and must be provided to us either by the government itself, or by other agencies under government mandate. This leads to the The GeekWithA.45's post where he notes, "the right to for you to have something creates the duty for someone else to provide that thing." If you replace the word "right" with "entitlement" in that sentence, it is entirely correct.

As an analogy, consider the Second Amendment. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. This means that we have the right to obtain and possess weapons such as firearms, knives, swords, etc. (Just how powerful a weapon we have the right to possess is beyond the scope of this discussion.) But the Second Amendment does not mean that anyone, whether it be the government or someone else, is required to provide us with such weapons. We must still obtain them ourselves. We have the right to bear arms, but we are not entitled to have them given to us.

Rights are inherent in our existence, or as Bill notes, they are birthrights. Rights impose no obligation on any other people except that they cannot prevent us from exercising them. They do not require that anyone facilitate such exercise. Bill notes in his video:

[T]here’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else.

And that word is “slaves.”

This is equally true of people who are required to work for the benefit of others, to provide goods and/or services without being compensated for their time and effort. In Barack Obama's America, both kinds will exist, and government will be the master.

Follow the money, if you can

2008-10-02T12:34:00.000-07:00

Well, here's something interesting. The McCain campaign is disclosing the names of all donors, regardless of donation size, online. The Obama campaign, however, is not.

FEC rules state that a campaign must disclose the name of any donor whose aggregate donations total over $200. Indications are that the Obama campaign is exploiting this as a loophole to disguise the sources of nearly half of the amount he has raised so far.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Read the whole thing to learn about the donations of such well-known citizens as Good Will and Doodad Pro.

But that's just the beginning. It turns out that the Obama campaign has received a considerable amount in foreign donations whose sources are questionable.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Now it's possible that most or all of these donations are legitimate. But somehow I don't think so. I call on the Obama campaign to emulate the McCain campaign and reveal the names of all donors. Of course should that actually happen, a certain red-skinned, horned, and tailed ruler of a very low-elevation domain will be required to put traction tires on his vehicle to drive to work.

Hmmmm....

2008-09-30T13:41:00.000-07:00

My Representative to Congress, Democrat Jay Inslee, has done a couple of things recently that I find interesting.

He voted against the big financial bailout package in its defeat yesterday in the House. He was the only Democrat from Washington to vote against it. All three Republicans from Washington also voted against it.
He sponsored a bill, "that would greenlight an anticipated agreement between Webcasters and SoundExchange, a nonprofit that collects royalties on behalf of recording copyright owners and artists from Internet radio stations and other digital radio services." The bill just passed the House unanimously.

Inslee's bill would enable the two sides to continue negotiations through Feb. 15 and make any deal struck while Congress is in recess legally binding. The bill would provide congressional approval for any agreements that SoundExchange reaches with Webcasters represented by the Digital Media Association, a trade group made up of companies that operate in the online audio and video market, and with other types of Webcasters, such as National Public Radio and college or religious Webcasters.

I've never voted for the guy, and I expect that on most issues I'd disagree with him, but these two actions are prompting me to take a closer look at his views and his record.

Party of the rich, and braver people than me

2008-09-30T10:07:00.000-07:00

On the way to work I saw an older Ford Thunderbird sporting a McCain - Palin sticker on the trunk lid above the license plate. The car had obviously been in an accident at some point because, while the car was white, the front bumper, hood, and right-front fender panel were not. And yet this working woman, who doesn't make enough money to afford a nicer car and still feed her family, had put this sticker on her car. I guess she figured the car was already cosmetically-challenged enough that the risk of it being scratched or otherwise vandalized was not that big a deal.

But then, she's obviously one of those people who consistently vote "against their best interests" so maybe she's just not smart enough to realize the risk she's taking.

Shortly after that, I saw a recent Chrysler 300 sporting small McCain and Rossi stickers on the rear window. As I passed I did a double-take when I looked at the driver. There is only one possible explanation for his hairstyle: He's an Elvis impersonator, specifically the overweight jumpsuited Vegas Elvis of the 70's.

Respect for opposing viewpoints

2008-09-29T22:25:00.000-07:00

Which is something you won't find in one Seattle neighborhood.

Ray Till lives in Seattle's Crown Hill neighborhood. He says his home was vandalized Saturday after he placed McCain campaign signs in his front yard.
Till says; "I found my McCain sign over there on the front porch with dog feces all over it."

During the 2004 campaign, someone had put up a large Bush sign up in a location that was visible from the freeway as I drove to work. On at least two occasions, the sign was broken up or knocked over. I don't take that route anymore so I don't know if there's a McCain sign. I should drive by there one day before the election and see.

I've yet to see any vandalism directed at a sign supporting a Democrat candidate. That's because Republicans and conservatives have a little something called respect for other people's property and respect for other people's opinions, even if we disagree with them.

This is not to say that the majority of Democrats and liberals do not. But it's telling that this effort to repress the free speech of others is so one-sided.

Stifling free speech

2008-09-17T22:40:00.000-07:00

Okay, here's the deal. It is entirely legal for people to call a radio station in response to a talk show guest they disagree with. It is their right to do so, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But if the McCain campaign had done what the Obama campaign has done, they would be excoriated.

Though we must acknowledge their rights, we nevertheless may criticize their method:

Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

And we will note the hypocrisy:

During the August fiasco, outraged pro-Obama callers fumed that WGN had offered Kurtz an unchallenged forum, despite the fact that Team Obama had declined an invitation to appear alongside Kurtz for the duration of the program. This time, however, Freddoso was actually paired up with an Obama-supporting counterpart. This wasn’t good enough for the Obama thought police, who blasted out marching orders to shut down the discussion. Once again, the phones melted down. The Obama campaign should be proud.

I have no doubt that Obama would sign legislation re-instating the Fairness Doctrine should it come to his desk as President. But as these events show, fairness, no matter how it is defined, is not the agenda.

Update: Based on additional data, this appears to have been more along the lines of a denial of service attack. The goal was not just to express displeasure, but to clog the phone lines and bring down web servers to prevent the opposing point of view from being expressed. That does indeed cross the line. Perhaps not to the level of a crime, if only because existing law may not cover this situation, but certainly beyond the bounds of what is right.

Fiscal responsibility

2008-09-16T15:22:00.000-07:00

I have long considered it likely that the majority of the blame for the current financial crisis does not rest with the Bush administration. I've read a few things to support this, but until today I hadn't seen it laid out so clearly and completely. As it turns out, the Bush administration tried to do something about the impending collapse, with predictable results:

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

So who was responsible for those bad loan practices in the first place? Answer: it's who you think it is:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

(Note: The actual name of the legislation passed in 1977 is the Community Reinvestment Act.) The article goes on to detail Clinton administration mismanagement that further contributed to the mess. I recommend reading all of it.

I included the last paragraph in the above exerpt for the sake of fairness because it points out that Wall Street isn't blameless in this disaster. Regulations to prevent that sort of thing may be in order. I'm not an expert, though, which is why I link to people who are. It is increasingly clear, though, that the Bush administration was at least trying to stave off an impending disaster the seeds of which were planted during past Democrat administrations. Big surprise.

Stalling for power

2008-09-16T14:35:00.000-07:00

According to Amir Taheri in this opinion piece for the New York Post, Obama has attempted to usurp the role of the President and the State Department in foreign relations:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

He also attempted to usurp the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces:

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Taheri provides his thoughts as to why Obama might have done this. For example:

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Now I'm going to take this with a grain of salt; this is an opinion piece after all. As Fox News is reporting, the Obama camp has denied the allegations in Taheri's article. But if it's true, my understanding is that it's a violation of Federal law. I'm going to keep my eyes open for any additional information on this.

Selling faith

2008-09-16T09:25:00.000-07:00

I heard about this on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning while driving to work. The Obama campaign is now selling "faith merchandise" so that people of faith can show their support. You too can pick up a rally sign or a button at the Obama store. There's also a Believers for Barack Obama website. It doesn't appear to have any links to the merchandise, but it is paid for by the Obama campaign.

As Mr. Beck noted this morning, if the McCain campaign were to sell "Believers for Palin" merchandise, they would be excoriated in the press. But since Obama is the Messiah, it's only natural that "people of faith" would support him. Right?

Guilt by geographic location

2008-09-15T16:35:00.000-07:00

The concept of guilt by association is nothing new. But this is something I've never seen before:

It has been years since groups such as the Montana Militia, the Posse Comitatus and the Sagebrush Rebels, and individuals such as Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski have made us wonder why so many "angry white men" populated our rural regions. Many of us have forgotten the threat once posed by domestic terrorists and instead have turned our attention to foreign terrorists. But we should never forget that in the late 20th century, ultra-Christian, antistatist and white-supremacist groups flourished in the states of the Pacific Northwest - called by many the "Great White Northwest" - the very region that Sarah Palin and her family call home.

I know a lot of people who live near me in this very same Pacific Northwest who would be rather surprised to know that they're white supremacists. Some of them aren't even white!

In the penultimate paragraph the author, Catherine McNicol Stock, writes:

There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand, the beliefs of ultraconservative, evangelical churches like her family's come dangerously close to those of the Christian Identity movement of those years. Likewise, Palin's husband was a member of a political party whose members favored secession for Alaska, suggesting an affiliation with radical antistatism.

Emphasis is mine. Wow, so lack of evidence to the contrary is now evidence. Say, Ms. Stock, there's no evidence that you're someone who supports taking property away from private individuals and giving it to developers so that property tax revenues can be increased. But the city in which you work, New London, Connecticut, has a history of doing exactly that. To paraphrase the final paragraph in your "article," perhaps somewhere on the record you've voiced condemnation for those actions. But it's hard to know where you stand on issues of property rights and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Thus it is high time to review the cultural ideals and models of the radical liberals from New England and find out for sure where you stand.

Hat tip Mike.

Flawed analogy

2008-09-12T23:09:00.000-07:00

The GeekWithA.45 provides three definitions of what a "community organizer" is. It's pretty clear which one Barack Obama was.

During times of ordinary peace, follows and promotes the teachings of Saul Alinsky for the purpose of organizing the community into a coherent voting bloc. The minimum objective of this activity is to use this amassed power for the purpose of obtaining financial, regulatory and legal benefit from governmental and private sources. The implicit goals of the activity includes delivering a payload ideological indoctrination to that group, fostering the usual Leftist outcomes of dependency, collectivism, and the downwards spiral that comes with "progress" through wealth redistribution rather than the achievement of financial independence.

This leads me to address the analogy that Democrats and leftists have recently worn out: "Jesus was a community organizer. Pilate was a governor."

Well allow me to retort!

I'll start with Pilate. He was not, in reality, a governor, at least not as we use the word today. He was the prefect of Judea during the time it was under Roman control. He was appointed to his post, not elected by the people. And he didn't actually govern. His duties were primarily military, and he was also responsible for collecting imperial taxes. The actual government in charge of civil administration was local.

That brings us to Jesus. For most of his life, he was a carpenter. Then, at around 30 years old, he began his ministry. Depending on your views, he became an itinerant preacher, a prophet, an avatar, or the saviour of mankind. His actions were those of a teacher, and did not fit any of the definitions of "community organizer" noted in the post linked above.

The analogy fails, though it doesn't surprise me they keep saying it. Obama is the Messiah after all.

Pigstickin'

2008-09-10T09:30:00.000-07:00

Republicans and conservatives, as you might expect, reacted negatively to Obama's comment that, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Now I don't know if he was trying to make a subtle, or not so subtle, dig at Sarah Palin. To be honest, I don't really care. No, what struck me was that it sounded like an attempt to sound all folksy and rural and it fell flat. He followed up the comment with, "You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years."

It doesn't come across on the screen but, if you listen to audio of his remarks, it's clear he's struggling with the metaphors. He's from Chicago, he's from an urban environment and culture. It sounds to me like he was trying to come off as something he isn't. And it didn't work.

Is Scalzi losing it?

2008-09-08T18:20:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite science fiction authors of recent years, John Scalzi, has a few words for Democrat and liberal commenters on his weblog.

John, you're a great author, and I love your books, but you really need to stick with what you're good at.

Did you really not know that coming out of the GOP convention, the GOP candidate might have a poll bounce? Likewise, were you somehow surprised that the GOP might try very hard to make this campaign about something other than actual issues?

Just like the Democrats. Hope and Change are hardly issues.

The GOP picks a woman VP 24 years after you do, for the same goddamn reason you did (a contentless call to shore up a shrinking base), and you act like you’ve never seen this movie before?

Watch it John. If a Republican said that, he or she would be labeled a sexist so fast the words would emit Cherenkov radiation.

For God’s sake, she’s scandal-plagued Atwater spawn from a state with the population of Fort Worth, Texas, whose job it will be to work the lights of the Naval Observatory for four years. She’s a walking, taking advertisement for how easily placated religious conservatives are at this moment in history.

Here you have a prime example of elitism, folks. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Scalzi has only made it big as an author in the last few years which goes to show that elitism doesn't require one to be among the elite.

Please accept that the GOP will feast on every single fucking instance in which you show even the slightest hint of entitlement to the presidency.

You damn betcha. And well they should.

Please accept that the GOP SOP is to win by any means necessary, and that they’ve cultivated an entire generation of political strategists and media lackeys who can’t think in any other way, and whose allegiance to the party is reflexive and far stronger than their interest in things like facts.

Only differences are that the Republicans know it, and the Democrats enjoy support from far more and more prominent "media lackeys."

The GOP will crush you — again — if you keep doing it. For fuck’s sake, they’ve played you exactly the same way since the 2000 election. Will you please exhibit a learning curve. You’ve been here before.

Stupidity should hurt. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, if Republicans have a winning strategy, and use it again, who are the crazy ones?

I notice that you're only calling out Democrats and liberals, John.. Think there might be a reason for that?

It's interesting. I've met various science fiction authors in my time and to be honest, many of them struck me as being of average overall intelligence. Not that they were stupid or anything, and as writers they definitely had a good command of language. But I guess this is just further proof that writing good science fiction doesn't require one to be a genius.

Unfriendly work environment

2008-09-08T11:43:00.001-07:00

A coworker of mine has a small Obama poster in her cubicle. It's the one evocative of Communist propaganda that says "HOPE" at the bottom. Now, of course, I don't have a problem with that. I gotta wonder, though: What would happen if I put a McCain-Pain sticker or sign up in my cube? Would someone tell me I need to take it down because it makes somebody "uncomfortable?" Would it suddenly just disappear one day?

No, probably not. I'm certain my coworker wouldn't do anything, but I'm not entirely certain that nothing would happen.

Quote of the day

2008-09-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

Remember: Standards are good. Double standards are twice as good.

Ignore this man

2008-09-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

After all, he's just a dumb soldier who didn't have any other option, or who was duped into it by a duplicitous recruiter.

Memo to Chris Gregoire

2008-09-07T21:45:00.001-07:00

You're running against Dino Rossi, not George Bush. Just thought you'd like to know....

The Aristocrats

2008-09-06T14:59:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not talking about that rather famous joke. I'm talking about the characterization of Cindy McCain as aristocratic. For example, it has been noted that during her speech in which she referred to Barack Obama as "elitist" she was wearing earrings worth an estimated $280,000 (assuming that her earrings were real three-carat diamonds). As has also been noted, there is a difference between "wealthy" and "elitist." Whether or not Obama deserves such characterization I'll leave for you to decide. However, I would like to bring up some interesting information which I think pertains to whether or not Cindy McCain is truly "aristocratic" and a comparison between the McCains and Obamas when it comes to helping out their fellow citizens, especially those less fortunate than themselves. After all, that's what the Democrats say they're all about, and what they accuse Republicans of not caring about at all.

First up, we have a description of the charitable giving from John and Cindy McCain:

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

...

Mrs. McCain has donated the same amount to charity as her husband — a total of $170,162 for each of them — over the past two years, his campaign said.

...

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”

Next up, a rather complete rundown of Cindy McCain's charitable activities:

But beyond the designer clothing and the perfect blond hair is a Cindy McCain few have ever seen, one who contrasts sharply with the smiling, glossy image she projects alongside the senator on the campaign trail.

This Cindy McCain harbors a ruggedness and fearlessness befitting her war-hero husband.

She has waded through minefields in Cambodia. Slept out in the bush in tents in Angola. Comforted children under the broiling sun in Morocco.

But the 53-year-old's extensive charity work has been largely overlooked.

This is just a taste so read the whole article.

Now how about Barack and Michelle Obama? Let's take a look, shall we?

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

...

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

In 2005 they gave the church $5,000 and in 2006 it received $22,500. Over the past two years, the Obamas have claimed charitable deductions for $45,000 in gifts to reading programs; $31,000 to CARE, an international aid group; $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; and $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre. Michelle Obama serves on the board of directors of the South Side dance troupe.

And this is from the Chicago Tribune, his hometown newspaper.

Now I know the Obamas have done some charity work besides donations. However, there doesn't seem to be much information on what it might be. I did find this, but it's pretty thin.

Obama has dedicated time to neighborhood projects in poor communities.

He spoke at an event for K.I.D.S., a charity supporting disadvantaged children.

...

Obama spoke at a charity event for girls in Omaha, helping to raise $154,000 for the group.

In 2007, Obama created a “doodle” which netted nearly $7,000 in an auction for NF, Inc.

If anyone knows of anything else, please let me know. I want to be as fair as possible on this issue.

Now whether or not wearing such expensive clothing and jewelry during her speech was particularly wise is a matter for debate. I think the Republicans should have known she'd become the target of such criticism and had her tone it down, especially after Michelle Obama's speech the previous week where she was rather understated in how she dressed. But to take base such a broad characterization on that one event, without doing any research like I've presented here, is irresponsible at best.

Regardless, how the candidate's spouse is dressed during the speech is not an indicator of how qualified he is to hold office. Characterizing the Obamas as "elitist" is based on their words and deeds, not how they dress. But to the left, impressions and feelings are as important as logic, perhaps even more so.

O'Reilly on Obama

2008-09-05T19:24:00.000-07:00

As I noted earlier, Barack Obama was interviewed yesterday by Bill O'Reilly. As a followup, O'Reilly devoted his latest column to his thoughts about the interview. A couple of things stood out:

As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.

Nothing surprising there, but it sums up pretty concisely Obama's very liberal views. It's not new at all. It is, as Bill says, classically liberal.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

Okay, I can accept that. However, I still think he should admit that he was wrong about the surge and that John McCain was right. He won't, though, as it's not good politics and would likely offend his base.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy—that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

I've never said that Obama didn't want what was best for America and its people. Though I disagree strenuously and passionately with his political positions and intentions, and question his judgment, I don't think he intends to do evil. I think his policies will be destructive but I do believe he thinks they will be beneficial and he feels strongly enough about them that he's willing to fight for the power to implement them.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take it any easier on him, though. And I will certainly call him on it when his methods, or those used by his supporters, cross the line as they so often have, especially with regards to Governor Palin.

Update: And I reserve the right to change my mind should new facts become available, or should Obama say or do something that belies the above conclusions.

Flyin'

2008-09-05T16:31:00.000-07:00

In the comments to Bill Whittle's latest post, a commenter going by the handle Richard R wrote the following:

Something I found out last night.

We all know John McCain was a fighter (actually, light bomber) pilot.

Cindy's a Pilot too, she has a Cirrus.

Sara Palin is a pilot. Todd Palin is a pilot. They own a Supercub on floats.

I've poked around and it looks like it's all true.

Now I'm a private pilot myself so I know what it takes to get your license. It's not the most difficult thing in the world but it takes dedication, intelligence, and the ability to keep track of several different things at once. It also requires that you keep calm in stressful situations.

But perhaps the most important thing is that the federal regulation of pilots is one of the few areas of government where the emphasis is on personal responsibility. As the pilot in command, I am responsible for the conduct of my flight. If something goes wrong, it's on my head with few exceptions (such as a maintenance error that I wouldn't be expected to discover). It's perfectly legal for me to take someone flying who is not a licensed pilot and hand over control of the aircraft. I can even let that person operate the aircraft through the entire flight including takeoff and landing. However, if that person crashes the plane, or otherwise screws up, it's my fault and I'm the one that will have my license suspended or revoked, or even harsher penalties applied.

Knowing that both McCain and his running mate are pilots tells me that they understand the concept of responsibility and that they're capable of handling themselves in sticky situations. That their spouses are pilots is an added bonus.

If you want peace...

2008-09-05T12:41:00.000-07:00

The saying goes, Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated from Latin, it means "If you want peace, prepare for war." Its simple wisdom is as applicable today as it was in ancient Rome. Yet there are those that believe that preparation for war only serves to make it more likely.

The world will have peace when the whole world wants peace. As long as there exist people who desire war, those who desire peace must be ready and able to defeat them when their desires are made manifest.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong

2008-09-05T12:02:00.000-07:00

However, Barack Obama has done nothing of the kind.

Yesterday, Obama sat down with Bill O'Reilly for an interview. Regarding the troop surge which has had such dramatic success, he had some comments:

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (Emphasis mine -RR)

At least he's admitting that it has worked, though to say that nobody anticipated that it would ignores George Bush, Obama's opponent John McCain, and a host of commentators and bloggers who all supported the decision to send more troops over and get the job done right once and for all.

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

It's still a work in progress, true, but progress is being made as demonstrated by the U.S. military turning control of the Anbar Provice over to the Iraqis.

We're winning in Iraq. It's time to accept and support it.

Hanson does it again

2008-09-04T15:32:00.000-07:00

In his piece, Target Palin, VDH takes on several of the issues that have evolved since the announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate.

On the contrast between Palin and Biden:

When Palin talks about her present life it sounds as authentic as Biden’s showy populism came off as false. Enraged feminists are apparently the gatekeepers for less well-educated American women, who are supposed to have 0-1.5 children not 5! Their husbands must be professors, lawyers, CEOs, editors—not snowmobile champions, union members, oil workers, and fishermen—or, worse, all in one! And unlike a Pelosi, Quinn, or Clinton, Palin, God forbid, did not rely on a powerful, wealthy husband or father to energize her career. Worse still, she took no women’s studies class, never attended the Ivy League, and shoots moose. The danger is not just that Sarah Palin could win McCain the election, but she could expose the entire flimsy structure of doctrinaire liberalism as the hypocrisy—and chauvinism—it has become.

On the double standard propagated by the Left and the media that is now more obvious than ever:

Obama’s violation of drug laws with a “little blow” was youthful exuberance; Palin’s husband’s DUI was more proof of a working-class messy family.
...
Criticizing Clinton’s engaging in sex in the oval office and lying about it to the American people were once “the politics of personal destruction”; lying that Sarah Palin might not have been the mother of her 5th child is the mere overreach of the blogs caused by the improper vetting of the McCain campaign.

Not to mention lying about it under oath which is the crime for which he was actually impeached.

The immediate ferocity of the reaction by the Left and the mainstream media to Palin's nomination is unprecedented. The unfounded attacks on Palin and her family, particularly her daughter, and the flat out lies that have been told about them are truly disgusting.

It serves to demonstrate how scared they really are and it's going to backfire, at least to a degree. It may even outrage enough people that the media is finally truly called to the carpet for their obvious but unadmitted bias. At least I can hope.

The non-existent bit-bucket

2008-09-02T14:40:00.000-07:00

Mike tips us off to a post at LGF documenting continued efforts to hide the fact that the Democrats' staunchest supporters include raving lunatics of the type mentioned in my previous post. It seems the Kostards haven't figured out that once something's on the Web, it's forever. All we have to do is pay out the rope, folks. Then, once they've tied the knot and slipped the noose around their collective neck, just pull the lever, sit back, and watch them dance.

Oh, by the way, the reference to hanging in the previous paragraph should not be taken as a racist comment referring to the practice of lynching. But I'm sure it will anyway. I'm white, after all, and can't help myself.

The Dogs of (Political) War

2008-09-02T12:44:00.001-07:00

The 2008 Presidential campaign has already turned pretty nasty. The attacks from the left have already begun in earnest; in particular on two different but related fronts.

The first is that of the direct, physical assault. Yesterday during the first day of the Republican National Convention, some enterprising radicals thought it would be a good idea to harass arriving delegates and even commit vitriolage. In some cases, they didn’t even wait for the buses to arrive before committing their assaults.

You will note that there were no “conservative protesters” (an oxymoron, really) at the DNC last week, let alone anybody doing anything like this. If there had been, you can bet whatever amount you like that it would have been all over the news in lurid headlines and breathless prose.

The second front is the more “respectable” one, if no less repugnant. Since the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate, the Democrats and their supporters have been pulling out all the stops in the effort to smear her in any way they can, regardless of how baseless and ridiculous their allegations. They are descending far below the level to which they in their fevered imaginations can even contemplate the Republicans sinking. It has the air of desperation about it, which means that they’re truly concerned even though they’ll never admit it.

Of course, since they’re right, dammit! anything and everything is justified. Any target, from Palin to her husband to her children and even her unborn grandchild is fair game.

Palin and her family are going to be put under a media microscope the likes of which has never before been seen. I hope they’re up to it. Unlike Obama, they don’t have the luxury of declaring topics “off limits” if they’re inconvenient.

All class, all the time.

2008-09-01T00:17:00.000-07:00

First up, we have Michael Moore, prevaricator extraordinaire and hero to those that the Democrat party should be ignoring, but that instead appears to be their base:

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

After that comment, Moore backed off a bit and did say he hoped nobody got hurt and he hoped everybody is taking cover. However, he failed to make note of the $43.625 billion in damage the last hurricane to strike New Orleans caused – Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – and the billions of dollars the storm cost taxpayers.

Now frankly I'm not surprised that Moore said this. Disgusted, yes, but I've been disgusted with him for years.

On the other hand, somewhat surprised (but only somewhat) to hear the same sentiment from National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler during an in-flight conversation with Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. Video below, commentary at RedState.

So New Orleans is going to get pasted again. People may die and who knows how much property damage will be done. Fuel costs will rise again because of all the refining capacity that's in danger and the economy will suffer, affecting the poor the most. But it's all okay, you see, because it will help Democrats gain power. Ha ha ha. Sickening.

Contrast this with what the Republicans are doing:

John McCain tore up the script for his Republican National Convention on Sunday, ordering the cancellation of all but essential opening-day activities as Hurricane Gustav churned toward New Orleans.

“This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans,” he said as fellow Republicans converged on their convention city to nominate him for the White House.

The President is also ordering his priorities correctly:

President Bush is skipping the Republican National Convention on Monday and will travel instead to Texas to meet with emergency workers and evacuees as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf Coast.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's just a slight bit of difference.

Gustav approaches the Big Easy

2008-08-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

There's a good chance that Hurricane Gustav will strike New Orleans, at least indirectly. This time, things are going to be a bit different than they were three years ago when Hurricane Katrina hit the city.

Police with bullhorns plan to go street to street with a tough message about getting out ahead of Hurricane Gustav: This time there will be no shelter of last resort. The doors to the Superdome will be locked. Those who stay will be on their own.

Authorities issued the warning Friday as new forecasts made it increasingly clear that New Orleans will get some kind of hit — direct or indirect — as early as Monday.

And those among New Orleans' 310,000 residents who ignore orders to leave accept "all responsibility for themselves and their loved ones," said the city's emergency preparedness director, Jerry Sneed.

I sense that MSNBC is emphasizing the "you're on your own" aspect for a reason but I'll let that slide for now. There is also an extensive plan to evacuate those who can't get out on their own. Hopefully things will go better than they did three years ago, and hopefully the levees will hold and the city won't flood. Still, when a hurricane hits a major city like New Orleans, there are usually at least a few casualties. My thoughts are with the people of the Gulf Coast and I hope things turn out as well as they can.

Whatever happens, however many are injured or die, whatever the property damage ends up being, one thing's for sure. George Bush will be blamed.

Freedom for me, but not for thee

2008-08-28T13:51:00.000-07:00

We hear all the time from the outraged Left about how Bush and the Republicans are stifling dissent and squelching free speech, all the while proving that their allegations are factually false because they're still talking.

Well now freedom of speech really is under attack, but it's not a Republican that's threatening it:

You can expect hardball in a presidential campaign, especially one in a country as divided as ours seems to be. But the kind of hardballs being pitched is an indication of the people and policies that an incoming administration will be employing.

That is why it’s particularly troubling that the Obama campaign has filed a criminal complaint against the people behind an ad being run that links Obama to avowed terrorist William Ayers.

The link in the excerpt is to Ben Smith's Blog where he notes that it isn't just Republicans and conservatives who have come under attack. Obama's general counsel, Bob Bauer is an equal opportunity assaulter:

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.

Chilling, and a foreshadowing of what's to come under an Obama administration. Additional commentary can be found at The DC Examiner. Hat tip to Mike at Cold Fury for bringing this to my attention.

Democrats have long held themselves up as the champions of free speech and all the other rights and freedoms (with one exception, of course) enumerated in the Constitution or elsewhere. While many, if not most Democrats really do support these rights, that support isn't universal among the Left. I've brought up the Fairness Doctrine before and my fear that it will be revived even worse than before under an Obama administration. This just confirms that my fears are justified. John Hinderaker at Powerline is equally concerned:

Obama's suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here's the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can't know for sure, but why wouldn't he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he's a candidate, why wouldn't he order it as President?

Answer: No reason at all.

Funny money

2008-08-27T23:04:00.000-07:00

I live in Snohomish County, Washington. One of the larger local fairs is happening now and somebody thought it would be funny to sell fake 3$ bills "depicting Barack Obama wearing Arab headgear and featuring a camel" at the booth for the Snohomish County Republican Party.

Naturally, Obama supporters are all up in arms about this despite, as noted in the article:

"I don't think it's funny," said [Snohomish County Republican chairwoman Geri] Modrell, who said she ordered the bills removed as soon as she learned about them. "They were offensive. The volunteers are being told very clearly they must not do these sorts of things."

Now I personally don't condone these fake bills either. It reflects poorly on the Republican party and distracts from the real issues that I have with Obama, namely that he's a full-blown socialist. Even so, the reaction of some people is overblown:

Susan Ronken, a volunteer at the nearby Democratic Party booth at the fair, also saw the bills, which were present at the booth for at least two days this week.

"It was an absolute hate crime," said Ronken, who lives in Stanwood.

Give me a break. Satire yes, slander at worst, but a hate crime? Yet another example of someone claiming victim status in order to obtain power over those she disagrees with and shut them up.

Something else that piqued my interest was this:

The bills offended some passers-by at the fair, including Ronnie Thibault, a Monroe woman who said Republicans at the booth threatened to call security on her after she complained.

"My first reaction was, 'Are you kidding me? Really?' " said Thibault. "Even if a person is a Muslim, so what, but he [Obama] is not."

Thibault, who describes herself as a "hard-core Democrat," said she would have been just as offended if the Democratic booth at the fair had sold offensive depictions of Republican John McCain, who is expected to be nominated as the GOP presidential candidate next week in St. Paul, Minn.

This is pure speculation on my part but I suspect she did more than just complain which is what prompted the people manning the booth to consider calling security. She is, in her own words, a "hard-core Democrat" which implies that she is, shall we say, passionate about her views and her opinions of those who oppose them. As far as her claim that she'd be equally offended by an offensive description of John McCain, well I'll go ahead and give her the benefit of the doubt on that one, though it wouldn't surprise me if she expressed her offense somewhat less vehemently.

Never let the facts get in the way

2008-08-23T20:58:00.000-07:00

During the run-up to last Tuesday's primary election here in Washington State, I had been hearing radio ads paid for by the campaign of Christine Gregoire attacking her most likely opponent (since confirmed by the primary vote) Dino Rossi. As you might recall, Rossi initially won the gubernatorial election in 2004 but ultimately lost by a very, very slim margin after the Democrat Party paid for a manual recount that overturned the results of the machine recount.

One of the ads, as noted in this article at the Seattle Times, said that "Rossi voted to increase the state gas tax in 2003 and that he once supported the largest cut in transportation funding in state history." The article is referring to television ads but the radio ads I heard were basically the same content.

Of course, as I suspected and as the article confirms, "The ad accurately reports Rossi's votes, but omits important context surrounding the issues." Covering that context would entail excerpting a significant portion of the article so instead I'll just ask you to read it for yourself.

Interestingly, the radio ads were airing on the local conservative talk radio station. I guess if they want to pay the money, the station will take it, even though the ads will be mostly ignored by the station's listeners.

Because we're not a Communist Dictatorship, that's why!

2008-08-22T14:40:00.001-07:00

In a speech yesterday, Barack Obama had this to say:

Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option." Why aren't we doing the same thing?

Yeah, Beijing looks pretty good. But only from certain angles.

Hugh Hewitt in this bit at Townhall sums it up nicely:

I suppose so. Provided you don't mind de minimus pollution controls, employing people under Chinese labor conditions, and you don't mind construction standards in the countryside that allow the collapse of thousands of buildings including schools when the earthquake hits, killing tens of thousands.

Obama has said a lot of stupid things recently, but the idea that totalitarian eye-candy engineering proves Beijing is the better than America is near the top of the list.

To be honest, I'm amazed that world records are falling the way they are at the Olympics in swimming and track given the pollution in the air. The swimming venue is indoors so I'm assuming its air is filtered. But the track and field venue (the "Birds Nest") is open air. Still it wouldn't surprise me if they expended the effort to install air filtration systems that provide relatively clean air at the level of the field and lower seating, not to mention the power it takes to run them.

Who you hang with, disarmament, and free speech

2008-08-22T14:39:00.000-07:00

Yet another reason to question Barack Obama's judgment when it comes to those he associates with:

As an “ordinary American,” I sincerely question whether Barack Obama has the judgment to be president. His lack of judgment in choosing Eric Holder as a top adviser on his campaign -- the man partly responsible for pardoning terrorists who proudly claimed responsibility for my father’s murder -- serves as primary evidence supporting that judgment.

Holder now leads Obama’s team selecting his running mate for vice president, perhaps Obama’s most important decision during the campaign. Mr. Holder, formerly the No. 2 official in former President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, often is mentioned as a potential attorney general in an Obama administration. This is the same man who was a driving force behind President Clinton’s pardons of members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN).

I've been saying, and even his supporters have agreed, that Obama desires the disarmament of the law-abiding American citizenry:

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. During the 109th U.S. Congress, he voted against Senate bill 397, which outlawed frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. And while campaigning for the presidency in Pennsylvania earlier this year, he voiced his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban and spoke openly about his opposition to laws which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on or about their persons.

I always wondered what plans Clinton had for us if he could ever take away our guns, and now I wonder why Obama has been such a vocal critic of private gun ownership in the years leading up to his run for the presidency. What type of “change” does he have in store for the American people if he can succeed in disarming us?

But we the people are not the only ones he wants to disarm:

Obama wants to disarm America nationally by defunding the missile defense initiatives of which Ronald Reagan dreamed and which President George W. Bush has begun implementing. In a video message to his supporters in 2007, Obama promised that, if elected, he would not “weaponize space” and that he would cut investments in the “unproven” missile defense systems Bush already has in place (add to this his additional promises to “slow our development of future combat systems” and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons” by reducing our own supply first, of course -- it’s almost as if you can hear John Lennon asking us to “imagine there’s no heaven”).

Obama’s opposition to self-defense through missile defense equates to the disarmament of our allies around the globe (if there is no missile defense shield to deploy at home, there will be no shield to deploy abroad). This belief will not be lost on former Soviet satellites, which can see what Russia has done to Georgia in the past weeks and ascertain the kind of “change” Obama has in mind for them if he succeeds in denying them their best means of self-defense.

Regarding his desire to eliminate on a practical level the Second Amendment, it has been remarked in response that what's really more important is freedom of speech and that we no longer need the Second to uphold the First in the information age. But don't harbor any illusions that free speech is going to be any more sacred should Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches.

Enter, once again, the Fairness Doctrine. Should Obama be elected, I fully expect the Democrat-controlled Congress to work as hard as it can to put legislation reinstating this odious practice on his desk. And he will most certainly sign it, with a flourish.

It will be enforced against conservative talk radio, essentially destroying the medium. It will be enforced against conservative websites, newspapers, and television network (note the singular). Should it be enforced against liberal radio networks (i.e. NPR), websites (i.e. Daily Kos), newspapers (i.e. the New York Times), and television networks (i.e. all but Fox News), the enforcement will be token in nature with the requirements to fulfill their "obligations" being so easy to meet they are essentially meaningless.

Expect to see the definition of "hate speech" expanded exponentially. Expect to see the word "tolerance" redefined to match what we now call "acceptance" or even "endorsement." Expect to see the nonexistent "right" not to be offended enshrined in regulation.

Don't think it can happen here? Think again. It's already happening in Europe and Canada. We even have Supreme Court Justices who think that European law should inform the decisions of that highest court. If you think it can never happen here, you are a fool. I'd like to think it's unlikely. But I won't make the mistake of believing it to be impossible.

Prophetic

2008-07-30T11:23:00.000-07:00

I have an Xbox 360 and one of the games I have is Rock Band. As those familiar with the game know, there are many additional songs available for download from the Xbox Live Marketplace. One such song is Electric Eye by Judas Priest, part of a pack which includes the entire Screaming for Vengeance album.

The lyrics to the song are here.

Judas Priest is from Great Britain. The album was released in 1982. Given how much of a surveillance state Britain has become, this song is particularly prophetic, although the electric eyes are CCTV cameras and not satellites in orbit.

It's the shoes

2008-07-30T10:16:00.000-07:00

Isabel Wilkinson over at the Huffington Post has noted the following about John McCain's choice in footwear:

This summer John McCain is traveling in style. He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop — from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA. The Calfskin loafers, with silver-tone "Gancini" buckles, are imported from Italy.

Really, with all of the issues that the candidates will face during this election, you concentrate on McCain's shoes? Is that all you got? Besides, what kind of shoes does Obama wear? What about Hillary? Wanna bet they're not cheap either?

The thing is, it looks like he's wearing the same pair of shoes in all of the pictures. Yeah, they may be expensive Italian leather, but they're obviously comfortable and durable. For a man who spends as much time as he does on his feet, that's of paramount importance. I'd say he's getting his money's worth.

The double standard

2008-07-29T14:09:00.001-07:00

There's something that's been on my mind lately. During the 2004 Presidential election, much was made by the Left of the fact that John Kerry had served in the regular Navy - and had served in Vietnam, don't forget - while George W. Bush had served in the Texas Air National Guard without seeing any combat. Despite the evidence presented by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about the quality of Kerry's service, there is no denying that he actually did serve and actually was in Vietnam. During the election, Kerry's supporters repeatedly pressed the argument that Kerry's wartime service made him more fit to serve as Commander in Chief than George W. Bush.

Now the situation is reversed and the differences between the candidates is even more extreme. John McCain served in the Navy as a pilot and was shot down over Vietnam. He spent five and a half years in a POW camp where he was tortured. And, unlike waterboarding, there is no dispute that what he experienced was truly torture. His opponent, Barack Obama, never served in the military in any way.

Naturally, Obama's supporters are not saying that McCain's military service makes him in any way better suited to serve as CinC. In fact, unsurprisingly to me at any rate, quite the opposite is occurring:

One aspect of McCain's presidency that I have not seen addressed is the precise form of his military experience. We have had good presidents with military experience - Eisenhower and Carter come to mind - as well as good ones without it - FDR and Clinton, to name two.

But military experience is not all equal. Slogging through the mud is not the same as calibrating a nuclear submarine. And of all the possible military experiences, that of bomber pilot to me is most suspect.

The update to the original post is a particularly splendid example of spin and rationalization:

Update: several folks have pointed out that George McGovern was a bomber pilot, or shared experiences from ones who took their actions with great seriousness. Perhaps being a bomber pilot is one of those intense experiences that reveals underlying character, rather than forming it.

The hypocrisy is palpable. John Hawkins at Right Wing News shares my view.

Inherent in the system

2008-05-30T11:18:00.000-07:00

Click here for Hillary Clinton's letter to the Superdelegates. Read it and then come back. Didja read it? Good.

So Clinton is making the point that she's more likely to defeat John McCain in the general election than Barack Obama is.

One of the arguments she makes to support that assertion is that, "nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio." This does not mean that she thinks she'll win the popular vote, but the all-important Electoral College vote. Even though Democrats stated that Bush really lost the 2000 election because he lost the popular vote, should Clinton, or Obama, repeat that achievement, expect the Democrats and the media to be curiously silent about it.

Another argument she makes is that more people voted for her in the primaries than for Obama, indeed more than for any Democrat candidate in the past. In her words, "I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries."

First of all, if I'm interpreting it correctly, she's completely ignoring the delegates earned through the caucuses in those states which held them, including my home state of Washington.

Second of all she doubtless includes the votes in Michigan and Florida, the former of which didn't even have Obama on the ballot since he obeyed the DNC's ruling regarding Florida holding its primary too early and withdrew his name.

For the sake of argument, though, let's concede that her argument is correct and that she has a better chance of defeating McCain than Obama does. Let's also assume that enough superdelegates agree to make the difference and hand the nomination to Clinton if they vote for her. Will they?

Before I attempt to answer that, let's take a look at the superdelegate system and the reason I, at least, think that it was put in place. Quite simply, the superdelegates exist to override the will of Democrat voters (and caucus attendees) if the party elite decides that the people made the wrong choice. After all, the people can't be trusted to make such an important decision correctly all the time, right?

So given that, and given the assumptions above, will the superdelegates give the nomination to Hillary when all is said and done? I think it's unlikely. The reasons? There are two: The 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, especially the former where Gore did actually win the popular vote. During and after those elections, and especially after the Florida debacle in 2000, the Democrats made such a big deal about how so many voters were disenfranchised (most if not all allegations of which were not supported by the evidence) that they don't dare give the impression that they're doing the same thing even though the superdelegate system is designed to do exactly that. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this and they're trying their damnedest to navigate these tricky waters successfully. I think this is why the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are biding their time waiting to see the final results of all the primaries. And even now there are superdelegates announcing support for Clinton.

But Clinton obviously doesn't care. She's willing to say and do anything to win the nomination and then the general election. Even if it means truly disenfranchising the majority of Democrat voters and caucus attendees. And she either thinks she can pull it off, or she is trying to damage Obama sufficiently that he'll lose the election and thus give her another shot in 2012.

Free speech is not without consequences

2008-04-06T08:33:00.000-07:00

Whenever someone on the left strays from the reservation, the hatred and vitriol that comes their way from the far end of the spectrum can be stunning. Joe Leiberman is a classic example and I'm still tickled that he ran as an independent and was still reelected.

The latest Democrat to be made an example of is Geraldine Ferraro after she made comments to the effect that Barack Obama's race does indeed have something to do with why he is where he is. From her article at Wikipedia:

In a March 7, 2008, article in the Torrance, California newspaper, The Daily Breeze, Ferraro said regarding Clinton's nomination rival that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept". Ferraro had made a similar comment in 1984 about Jesse Jackson. The comment drew heated criticism from the Obama campaign and many others, and although Clinton expressed disagreement with its substance, she did not call for her resignation from the campaign. On March 11, again speaking to the Breeze, Ferraro remained defiant: "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" Ferraro refused to apologize. She resigned from Clinton's finance committee the next day, citing a desire to stop hurting the campaign. On March 12, 2008, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann described Ferraro's remarks as "despicable."

Enter left wing Air America talk show personality Randi Rhodes. At a recent public appearance in San Francisco, she had something to say about both Ferraro and Hillary Clinton (video at the linked page):

Air America host Randi Rhodes called both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton "whores" in a recent appearance, seen below. Rhodes, who hosts a weekday radio show on Air America, said to the cheering crowd, "What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a fucking whore!" She then proceeded to say, "Hillary is a big fucking whore, too" to a mixed audience reaction. "You know why she's a big fucking whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, asshole!'"

As a result, and to my pleasant surprise, she has been suspended by Air America. Even they understand that there are lines you don't cross. Rhodes had the right to speak her opinion. However, she is now being taught the lesson that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and that just because she has the right to say what she wants, nobody else is obligated to facilitate that right. Kudos to Air America and I hope that they don't cave in to pressure and change their minds.

Too many blows to the head I guess

2008-04-05T21:11:00.000-07:00

Back when he was running for Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura appeared on a morning show. I don't remember for sure but I think it was the Today Show and I think he was talking with Matt Lauer so I'll assume that's the case for brevity's sake. The topic of gun control came up. Ventura stated his opposition to gun registration and cited "what happened in the Philippines" in support of his view. I'm assuming that what he was referring to was registration followed by systematic confiscation of firearms by the government. Lauer said, "This isn't the Philippines," to which Ventura replied, "So?" He was exactly right. While it is less likely to happen in this country, historically registration of firearms by a nation's government has almost always been followed by confiscation. Ventura earned significant respect from me that day.

However, he just blew it all.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura vehemently savaged the official 9/11 story on a syndicated national radio show today, saying the WTC collapsed like a controlled demolition and was pulverized to dust as he also highlighted the impossible 10 second free fall speed of the towers.

Wow, I guess taking steroids really does mess with your brain. He apparently watched "Loose Change," the movie which purports to show how 9/11 was a big government conspiracy, and now his eyes have been opened.

"To me questions haven't been answered and are not being answered about 9/11," said Ventura, before highlighting the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story tall skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in its own footprint in the late afternoon of September 11.

That's because it was next to one of the collapsing towers and suffered substantial damage from the debris that struck it as the tower collapsed. When that tower came down, that kinetic energy had to go somewhere. A lot of it ended up in material shooting out the sides at substantial velocity.

"How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?" asked Ventura.

When that much weight starts falling, the remaining floors will present very little resistance to that kind of momentum. The entire structure above the impact point of each tower started falling as a single unit. Once it fell even a few feet, there was no stopping it and the lower structure only barely slowed it down.

The former wrestling star then questioned how low-temperature burning jet fuel could melt steel.

"Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene - which is not a hot burning fuel - and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground?" he stated. "I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense," said Ventura.

Rosie O'Donnell was wrong about this, and so is Ventura. Pour some jet fuel on the ground and light it. If it burns, it'll burn slowly it's true. But when those planes hit those towers, their kinetic energy was translated into an enormous amount of heat. The jet fuel burned, but it wasn't the only thing burning. Paper, wood, and other flammable materials all contributed to the heat, and they can burn mighty hot when in a concentrated area with good airflow. Not to mention the initial weakening of the structures by the impacts themselves.

As for the "pancakes" see above about the tremendous kinetic energy. When the concrete floors came down, they were pulverized, and as noted above a lot of that material was blown out the sides, damaging adjacent buildings.

"Never before in the annuls (sic) of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did," he concluded.

Never before has a steel structure building been subjected to that much initial structural damage and had that much concentrated fire in the damaged area. The event was completely unprecedented.

Having undergone Basic Underwater Demolition Seal training, Ventura is speaking from an experienced standpoint and he unequivocally stated that he thought the buildings were deliberately imploded.

The kind of training he underwent had nothing to do with bringing down large structures. It's a completely different kind of demolitions than what SEALs do. And since there's no mention of him actually using what he learned in a practical application he probably doesn't have any real world experience to back up his assertion.

How much explosive material do you think is required to bring down a building, even one like the Las Vegas hotels he mentions? How long does it take to prepare the building? The structural members have to be exposed and, in many cases, deliberately weakened. The explosives have to be placed and wires have to be run. Does he honestly think all the required activity could have occurred with absolutely nobody observing any of it? Does he honestly think that, with all of the people it would have required, especially those with experience in demolishing large buildings, that it could have stayed a secret?

Ventura also questioned the lack of wreckage outside of the Pentagon after Flight 77 allegedly struck the building.

"When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine - he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French - bullshit!," said Ventura.

"I turned to him and said why and he said because they're made of titanium steel - they can't disintegrate."

What does this guy's company do? Is it involved in materials science? Without a name and company, this particular argument is meaningless; it’s a classic example of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. And though I don't doubt titanium is used in jet engines, it certainly doesn't comprise the majority of material and isn't used for the engine housings. Like with a collapsing building, a large aircraft flying at speed has tremendous kinetic energy and when it impacts the ground or a building, much of that energy becomes heat. The rest simply causes the aircraft to be pulverized. There's a video of an F-4 Phantom being crashed at high speed into a concrete block wall. The plane is simply flattened and powdered like it's made of chalk. Look at pictures of any airliner crash site and you'll see the same thing. Every time I have I've wondered where the plane went. And there was indeed wreckage found, quite a bit actually, just not a lot of large pieces.

The definitive debunking of these myths, for myths they certainly are, was done by Popular Mechanics. I humbly suggest that Mr. Ventura read it before spouting any more Truther nonsense.

What media bias? Part the uncountably infinite

2008-03-26T09:11:00.000-07:00

Well here's another go at trying to post regularly here. My brother has finally started posting here and now has his own place as well so go check it out. Now on to the story....

It's old news now but Detroit's Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been criminally charged for lying about a sexual affair that he had with his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, who has also been charged:

In a Monday morning press conference, Wayne County's top prosecutor, Kym L. Worthy, charged Kilpatrick with eight felonies, including perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct for the text messages he allegedly traded with his paramour, Christine Beatty.

But the reason I'm bringing this up is one that has been repeated time after time. I searched around for the various news stories describing this situation. I probably looked at about twenty in total. Of those, only two mentioned that Kilpatrick is a Democrat. Yet another example of the media attempting to downplay the party affiliation of a Democrat involved in scandal. At this point I can safely say that if the party is not mentioned in the first paragraph (or the headline), the story is about a Democrat. Republicans' party affiliation is almost invariably revealed early.

Wow, this Blogging stuff gets addictive!

2008-03-20T05:48:00.000-07:00

So, I've decided to start my own blog, Griffon's Lair, right here on Blogger. Check out my first post. I get to use my favorite word again!

Arthur C. Clarke, RIP

2008-03-19T05:07:00.000-07:00

Sir Arthur C. Clarke has died.

A profound moment of silence is indeed called for.

I did not give as much of my time to Arthur C. Clarke's work as I gave to Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein (the other two of the Big Three described by Bruce Webster here).

But! There's no question that his impact on future writers and scientists has reverberated down through the years and affected me in my daily life constantly.

I may not have the words to properly eulogize Sir Arthur, but others will. Break out your google fingers this morning and check around.

Fare thee well.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Flouting the rules=disenfranchisement?

2008-03-18T05:06:00.000-07:00

Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party.

(But wait a minute; why is there an issue here? The DNP already settled this question, before the primary!!)

Of course, is anybody surprised it's coming down to this? I know Hillary Clinton isn't. (Come to think of it, she probably is surprised, and steaming mad, that the whole primary hasn't been settled in her favor already.)
It's also no surprise that now when things become important, suddenly the democrats shouldn't have to follow the rules, not even their own!
According to the rules of the Democratic National Party, if Florida held their primary before a certain date, the DNP would not recognize it as a valid primary, and would not be counted toward choosing which candidate the democrats would put up for President. Florida, and Florida's democrat voters *knew* this. They defied the party anyway, and the DNC enforced their rules. Well, so far anyway...

So of course, what happens when things start getting a little rough in Democrat-Land? Here comes that word:

Michael Steinberg, a lawyer for Victor DiMaio, a Democratic Party activist from Tampa, said Florida's Democratic voters are being disenfranchised by not being permitted to have their say in choosing their party's nominee. The action violates DiMaio's constitutional right to equal protection, he argued.

So check me on this; The primary is a way for a certain group of voters to decide who they're going to back for office in a general election. This is a procedural vote for members of a subset of the american voting public. No office is being filled here. Where's the disenfranchisement? Not to mention, where were the state's democrats when the state decided to forge ahead with this defiance? Where were their voices then? (Same question to Florida Republicans actually).

Question: When a vote is called, and you flagrantly violate the procedures for how your vote is cast, are you disenfranchised? I say no. I say you played yourself. In fact, Florida knew this going into the vote. They didn't agree with the rules, didn't follow the rules, and did it hoping that something just such as this would occur. So arguably, Florida is getting exactly what it wants, at the expense of it's representation within the Democrat party.

Pardon me if I giggle. Would the word 'schadenfreude' be appropriate here? It is probably one of my very favorite words of all, and I very rarely get to use it (much less experience it). So permit me my moment... ah. Go Florida!!

In a very rare case for me, I find myself agreeing with the DNP:

"The citizens of the state of Florida are not being treated equally," Steinberg told the judges. But Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, said the party has the right to set its own ... rules and not seat delegates who refuse to follow them.

Actually Michael Steinberg, I daresay the (democrat voting) citizens are being treated exactly equal. Equal to any set of members within the DNP who violate the procedures of the party. Just ask Michigan. Hehe. (of course, we can already predict what's going to happen next in Michigan, can't we?) And, oddly enough, ask the members of the Republican Party in Florida and Michigan. Their primaries violated their party procedures as well, and they also are being treated according to their party's rules. Of course, on the Republican primary side, the question is settled already, without FL or MI.

(Of course, to a Democrat, equal means "I get it my way." Again, this time it's being used against other Democrats. Schadenfreude? Me? Hehe.)

...let me tell you what your tax dollars bought...

2008-03-12T05:38:00.000-07:00

On one hand, it's great to hear that a soldier is proud of his equipment. On the other hand, he's kind of busy you know... fighting a war. Couldn't he be doing something better with his time then being made to defend his ride against his own government (the one that supplied him with it in the first place).
Anyway, I enjoyed reading this first-hand account of how the Stryker MGS [Mobile Gun System] is being used in the field. I didn't even know it (this variant of the Stryker) existed. Actually, I don't know too much about the Stryker at all except that everybody seems to badmouth it.
And as you read this, tell me that you never had some criticisms of your own when it came to *your* favorite ride. Nothing's perfect, eh? (Yeah, I know; your old Chevette can't truly be compared to a soldier's armored fighting vehicle, but hey.)

Hat tip: Instapundit

PS: I'm RadarRider's little brother. You can see me listed as a contributor to this blog. So perhaps I should contribute? My first post here at Flying Above the Radar. :-)

Fred bows out of the race

2008-01-22T13:04:00.000-08:00

Fred Thompson has withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination. I'm pretty disappointed at this news. I won't second-guess Fred's decision because I am not him, nor am I an expert at campaigning for President. However, I would have liked to see him stay in it and campaign in Florida, especially since only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary in that state. It's possible that Democrats voting in earlier Republican primaries (such as South Carolina) had an effect on the outcomes so Florida would have been a better indicator of true Republican sentiment.

Again, I am not an expert but I do think there are some things Fred could have done better. Jim Geraghty has some words on the subject that I agree with. And it's too bad that the opportunity to refuse to do a show of hands in a debate didn't come sooner. But what's really sad is that more people didn't see Fred for what kind of President he would have made, whether because of the distortions of the media or their perception that he was "lazy" or didn't have the required "fire in the belly." And now too many of use who did won't have the chance to demonstrate it.

Nevertheless, what's done is done. I know I speak for a lot of folks when I say I'm sorry to see you go, Fred. I was really looking forward to voting for you in the Washington State primary and now I won't be able to unless I write your name in. Thanks for trying, and I hope you don't give up on politics altogether. This country needs as many people as possible for whom Federalism is the central tenet of their political views.

And now I have to figure out who I'm going to vote for and, with Fred no longer in the race, it will be a difficult decision indeed.

Update: The ever-irascible Kim du Toit is not as charitable in his initial reaction. I know how he feels. I want to be mad at Fred for pulling out so soon but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and temper my response. Perhaps in the coming days his reaction will prove to be justified. Until and unless that happens, however, I stand by the above.

Dan Rather plays the victim

2008-01-12T15:56:00.000-08:00

LGF points to an Associated Press article which explains that Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS for firing him may be allowed to proceed. As noted toward the end of the article:

Rather was removed from his "CBS Evening News" post in March 2005, six months after he narrated a report that said Bush disobeyed orders and shirked some of his duties during his National Guard service. The report also said a commander felt pressured to sugarcoat Bush's record.

As noted at LGF, the article makes no mention of the following facts:

The story was based on documents which were later proven to be fraudulent. (They were not forgeries which would imply that they were copies of legitimate original documents.)
Even after the documents' validity was disproven, Rather continued to assert that the story was true even though he had no real proof.

As these were germane to the case, the fact that the article omitted them is, well, not surprising at all. This is the AP after all.

So why is Rather suing CBS?

Rather, whose last months at CBS were clouded by a disputed story on President Bush's Vietnam-era military service, says his employers made him a "scapegoat" to placate the White House after questions arose about the story.

No, Dan. They let you go because you are a partisan idiot who wanted so badly for the story to be true that you kept saying it was so even though your evidence was shown to be false. You were sullying CBS's name every minute you kept it up and they decided they already had plenty of problems with their credibility without you making things worse.

You have freedom of speech. You have the right to speak your opinions. However, CBS is under no obligation to facilitate it. You work for them, you represent them and what you say reflects on them regardless of any disclaimers to the contrary. They had every right to let you go.

Why the media dislikes Fred

2007-12-30T20:08:00.000-08:00

The Fred File blog at Fred Thompson's official web site linked to a post by Ron Winter addressing among other things the media's criticism of Fred on his "late" entry into the race and how he's running his campaign. He writes:

Thompson has been roundly criticized in the media for not entering the fray earlier, and for not making a big splash when he did formally declare. It should be noted that the media which is criticizing Thompson is the same media that decides whether or nor a candidate has made a "splash" - contingent entirely upon the level of play the media gives to the story.

Thompson has been slammed by the media because he isn't playing by the media's rules. Yet for all the criticism, Thompson is moving steadily upward. The truth is, Thompson is simply walking a different path to the same goal, and it may be a better route.

But Fred's sticking to his guns and doing it his way. This leads to the following comment of which the last paragraph is the money quote:

There is a tenet in public relations and political circles that you never argue with the media, not matter how badly they have misquoted you. I don't agree.

If the media is being partisan, and unprofessional, I believe you should grab the offender straight on and demand a correction. If the media outlet refuses to correct its mistakes, take out an ad pointing out the discrepancy, the refusal to tell the truth, and let the voters see what you really said. I also believe in bringing your own tape recorder or video camera to any interview so you have your own evidence of what was said.

The media is not sacrosanct and it is long past time to be treating irresponsible and unprofessional reporters as saints who can't be questioned or challenged.

Emphasis mine.

Read the other posts linked to at Fred File as well. It's clear that the media doesn't like Fred Thompson and they provide several good reasons for this. Yet I'm thinking that there is something more behind this.

I posit the following:

The mainstream media is, in general, biased toward liberal views and thus, again in general, towards Democrat elected officials and candidates.
The mainstream media is thus scared witless by the prospect of President Fred Thompson.
The mainstream media fears that Thompson has a good chance of becoming president if nominated, regardless of who the Democrat nominee is.
The mainstream media thinks that certain other Republican candidates can more easily be defeated by Hillary or Obama.

It therefore follows that the media would very much like someone other than Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee, someone they feel has a good chance of losing to either of the two Democrat candidates most likely to be nominated. And thus we can conclude that the media will do what it can to drag Thompson down and elevate one or more other Republican candidates which is what appears to be happening.