Angelina Jolie and Me

See the entry below entitled "Obama and Flashman".

Do you realize that Angelina Jolie has made essentially the same point in a piece in the Washington Post?  Okay.  She is nicer than I am.  She is more diplomatic.  But it is essentially the same point.

Jolie has come back from visiting Iraq.  Her conclusion:  the surge has WORKED. It has worked enough that we are now able to provide humanitarian assistance to "displaced Iraqi families".  She concludes that we have a moral obligation fo STAY and do that, rather than throw away the progress made by the surge.  She even says that it is in the long term security interest of this country to stay and help Iraq succeed in becoming a viable country.

Who knew Angelina Jolie was so smart?  Who knew that she was smarter than Barack Obama?  Who knew that Democrats would be better off with one of Hollywood's leftist couples running for President than Braack and Michelle Obama?

It doesn't hurt that Angelina Jolie is unnaturally gorgeous.

P.S.  I already got a snide comment on the above:  "Name dropping again, are we?".  Yep.  I admit it.  I have previsously done this with Rush Limbaugh.  But, frankly, Angelina Jolie is more pleasant to talk about.  I am going to have to find more reasons to drop her name.

Lysenkoism and Central Planning

It has been awhile since I explained why central planning is such a bad idea, and why the freedom of the free market is such a good idea--not to mention why the diversification of decision making (federalism) is such a good idea.  This also explains why I OPPOSE big mergers, and think the government should stop them (to PROTECT the free market, and a diversity of decision makers, rather than interfere with it).

Lysenko was put in charge of Soviet biology and agriculture by Joseph Stalin.  In effect, the Soviet Uniton decided, as a matter of central planning, that Lysenkoism is the correct view of genetics.  Problem:  Lysenkoism is FALSE.

Baslically, Lyskenko's idea was that acquired  characteristics could be inherited.  That means that you could environmentally "coach" both crops and people into the desired characteristics, and have those characteristics carried on into succeeding generaations.

Remember Mendel and Darwin?  Darwin was, of course, the originatior of the theory of evolution.  That theory is more accurately known as the theory of natural selection.  Mendel was the first, basically, to propose the idea of GENETICS--that there are genes for fundamental characteristics passed down from generation to generation.  Natural selecton, of course, acts through genes (which, in turn, are contained in DNA, and occasionally altered by mutation). 

The idea of natural selection, and genetics, is that characteristics that better enable an organism to survive and prosper are SELECTED for, because the genes of organisms that are successful do not get passed on (the organisms die without reproducing).  This is the "survival of the fittest" idea of Darwinism. 

You can see why Darwin and Mendel MIGHT not appeal to Communists, and why the idea of acquired characteristics (from the "right" environment) might appeal to Communists.  Darwin's theory of natural selection can be analogized to the supposed dog-eat-dog world of capitalism and free market theory--the idea being that those better able to succeed do succeed, while the "unfit" do not survive.  "Social Darwinism" is the "theory" developed along those lines.  Meanwhile, Communism stands for the idea that people can be TRAINED for desirable characteristics.  Look how it would validate that idea to have training passed on to future generations.

Problem for Lysenko and Stalin:  Lysenkoism is wrong, and natural selection/genetic theory is right.   In agriculture, that means that hybrids designed to favor deseriable genes WORK.  In animal husbandry, you can BREED for characteristics.  You can do the same thing in agriculture, and it is what farmers in the United States did. 

Meanwhile, Lysenko DESTROYED Soviet agriculture.  It is probably not an exaggeration that this KILLED millions of people (they starved).  Imosing the political agenda of today's environmentalists has the potential to do the same thing.

The first lesson of Lysenkoism, of course, is that it is absolute disaster to let a political agenda overwhelm the actual, skeptical PROCESS of science (as radical environmentists have done, and are doing, including with "global warming").  However, that is not the fundamental lesson.

The fundamental lesson is that CENTRAL PLANNING is a recipe for disaster.  By the time of Lysenko, it was probably too late to really dispute Darwin and Mendel in agriculture.  In other words, Lysenko should have known better.  Nevertheless, Lysenko COULD have been right.  The problem is that IMPOSING his ideas, by central planning, on everyone destroyed Soviet agriculture for a generation and STARVED people.  As "global warming" fanatics want to do, Lysenko was able to declare the matter "settled" (backed up by Stalin).  What if putting too much government emphasis on biofuels results in people starving?  What if pushing compact florescent bulbs too hard results in disregarding BETTER approaches to saving energy in lighting?  But this is not just a matter of politics and science.

The problem is IMPOSING one solution from on high.  The beauty of the free market is that many individual decision makers take different approaches, and the ones which WORK best succeed.   For an entity like the Federal Government to simply DECIDE which approach is best is directly the main EVIL of Lysenkoism.  It is not that the "central planning" solution is automatically going to be wrong.  But it WILL be wrong at least some of the time.  Every time it is wrong, you get the Lysenko problem--disaster that continues for an unconscionable period of time.

Let us segue to federalism.  The idea of the United States is that the free market is the first, best option.  That is because it provides a maximum amount offreedom and a maximum number od decision makers.  Bad decisions are self-correcting, and QUICKLY (another problem with mergers is that they enable mistakes to be hidden, as huge, merged corporate bureaucracies continue failed "policies" until the whole house of cards can no longer stand--the Lysenko evil again).   The free market is the engine that has created prosperity in the United States.

The second option, unde our supposed system, is for decisions to be made at the most local level possible.  That means more decision makers, and easier correction.  The most local level is the one where people can most easily be held accountable for their decisions.

The third, and least desirable, option (to solve problems) under our supposed system is the Federal Government option.  This is the central planning option.  It is the least desirable option because of the Lysenko problem.  If the Federal solution is wrong, or simply no longer works, it is almost impossible to change.  People can't be held accountable.  The government entity is just too big.  There is just too much money being spent to keep track of it, and it is regarded as "free money" (since it is so remote from the average person, even though Federal money affects the life of every person in this countryTake health care.  California KILLED Arnold's universal health care program for fear (certainty?) it would bankrupt the state.  But Democrats have not even slowed down advocating the FEDERAL universal health care option, because that is perceived as "free money" (even thouhg California people are providing more than their share of that money). 

Massachusetts has been driven close to bankruptcy by that Romney health care plan.  Look at how much better off we are that ONLY MASSACHUSETTS is in trouble.  If adjustments need to be made, Massachusetts can make them MUCH more easily than the huge Federal Government.  This is EXACTLY the Lysenko problem.  Centralized solutions are hard to change, and impose the same solution on everyone.   State or local solutions can be constantly tweaked to fit local conditions.

What is wrong with 50 state "solutions" to health care.  Maybe some states can figure out how to make the free market work.  Maybe some will figure out a decent government plan for their state.  In any event, there will be MULTIPLE decision makers n thecountry, and we will not be putting all of our eggs in the basket of a single decision (like Stalin did with Lysenko).    The only role for the Federal Government is to simply try to provide minimal (not maximum) coordination of to avoid the various state plans from causing people moving from state to state fo fall through the cracks.

How can leftists look at what happened with Lysenko, and think the way they do?  How can leftists look at the failures of central planning thoroughout history and think the way they do?  The only explanation I have is that leftists don't think.  They react with emotion.  They want to show that they CARE, even if their preferred central planning "sollutions" to everything is a guarantee of DISASTER for the ordinary citizen--disaster as each wrong central planning soluton results in a Lysenko typoe DISASTER.  This is true even if most central planning decisions were correct (which contradicts history--central planning decisions are rarely totally correct, and yet almost impossible to adjust to correct the mistakes).

I have cited NASA as still another example.  The Space Shuttle was a technical marvel.  Yet it was a DEAD END for the U.S. space program.  Can anyone doubt that we would have been better off with MULTIPLE approaches to the space program?  Maybe we would not be in the position of trying to RETURN to the moon by 2020--meaning that it is ADMITTED that the Space Shuttle was a 50 year detour into  a dead end.  It is not that the NASA decision on the Space Shuttle was "wrong".  It is that it was a central planning deicions, putting all of the eggs in one basket.  Yes, I do understand that there was no alternative to NASA.  Private interests have simply not been able to move into manned space exploration.  However, I also believe that there is no doubt that space exploration will never really take off until we ARE able to have private interests--or at least multiple countries and groups--proceeding into space.   The MULTIPLE decision makers of the free market and/or fedrealism are ESSENTIAL to avoiding Lysenko dead ends.

Do leftists ever really defend this idea of COERCION and central planning?  Of course not.  They just forge ahead as if previous disasters, such as Lysenkoism and Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, never happened.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  For leftists, the problem is that they seem to WANT to repeat it, because they desire nothing more than for people to be dependent on them--no matter how bad it is for the people in the long run.

 

Compact Florescent Bulbs: Environmentalists on a Roll

There is finally a mainstream media story today on the OBJECTIONS that people have to compact florescent light bulbs (those spiral things that use less electricity).

Do you realize that athere are environmental and leftist groups out there for which the word "mercury" is almost as damning as "nuclear"?  (There is mercury in florescent light bulbs, and if you break one of the things it creates an environmental hazard in your house.)

The autism inspired critics of the drug companies alone go hysterical over MINUTE traces of mercury in vaccines.

Yet Congress, and "global warming" fanatics are in the process of FORCING people to use florescent bulbs, while forcing incandescent bulbs out of the maket--taking away your FREEDOM.  That is the way leftist Democrats are.

What are these radical environmentalists accomplishing?  well, they seem to be FORCING more mercury into circulaton in our environment.  The Boston Globe recently ran an article on what you do if you BREAK a flrorescent bulb.  They advised NEVER to vacuum it up, and that the best thing is probably to CUT A SQARE OUT OF THE CARPET AND THROW THE WHOLE THING AWAY.   In other words, you virtually need one of those HAZMAT  Environmental benefits:  probably minimal--cerainly not as many as would be accomplished by a few more nuclear plans--probably with LESS danger.

Radical envrionmentalists are on a roll with this "global warming" insanity. Biofuels are taking food out of the mouths of the world's poor, to the point one U.N. official called them a Crime Against Humanity. Those same biofuels are accelerating the destruction of the rainforests (another environment cause being crucified on the alter of "global warming")--a study suggesting that the result will be MORE CARBON in the atmosphere.

Meanwhle, the earth is COOLING over the past year. The four leading global temperature tracking oulets are reporting a precipitoous DROP in the "termperature of the earth". Canadian scientists are talking about a lack of sunspot acitivity on the sun possibly resulting in a new ICE AGE (see entries over the past week in this blog).

Now environmentalists are trying to infect our country with all of this mercury: on a roll indeed. GO ENVIRONMENTALISTS. You may yet destroy us all.

When I talked about the negative roll environmentalists are on, I forgot the main item. My beer guzzling brother will never forgive me. He was so upset by this item that he called me especially (he NEVER calls me) just to vent. I still think this, alone, is going to spell the downfall of the tyrant environmentalists, even more than compact florescent bulbs.

BIOFUELS ARE RAISING THE COST OF BEER. Forget taking food out of the mouths of the world's poor. My brother regards this as SERIOUS. With the amount of beer he drinks, this theatens to hurt his standard of living much more than the price of gas.  (Net effect of biofuels, of course, is likely to RAISE overall prices--as it has already rasied the price of many foods.)

Imperial Congress

Yes, Congress continues its power grab, as it asserts the right to conduct fishing expeditions into the internal operations of the Executive Branch (an unconstitutional interference with an independent branc of government).  Nancy Pelosi has compuonded the original Congressional power grab by a letter (no Constitional power to make such a demand) demanding that the Justice Department convene a grand jury investigation into the "contempt of Congress" resolution that the House passed against two White House aides who refused to testify in the original fishing expedition.  This, of couse, immediately became a MJOR AP/AOL featured story (despicable as those tow media outlets are, along with the rest of the mainstream media).

"She (Pelosi) gave Attorney General Michael Mukasey one week to respond and said refusal to take the matter to a grand jury will result in the House's filing a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration."

Note the autmatic access Democrats have to the media to publicize outrageous, UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions.  The Justice Department is part of the Execuvtive Branch.  Under our Constitutional separation of powers, the Executive Branch has the sole power to enforce our laws.  A member of Congress has NO power to demand that the Justice Department do anything.--no right to "demand" a response to an unconstitutional request.

This is a power grab, pure and simple.  It is amazing how many in Congress (Imperial Congress?) have gotten the idea that there are no Constitutional limits on Congressional power (FALSE).    Has Barack Obama been asked whether he approves of this partisan effort to "bring us together" (yes, sarcasm)?

 

Obama and Flashman

"What they're saying, in effect, is:  "Kill our fellows tomorrow rather than the enemy today.

The above is the wisdom of Harry Flashman (see the full quote in the first entry today).

How does it apply to Barack Obama and leftists out there--indicating leftists have not changed much in more than a century?

Yesterday, Obama said that we would have to take "action" if al-Qaida seemed to be making progrees establish a base in Iraq--"to protect us here at home". 

John McCain then "mocked" (despicable AP/AOL headline word) Obama for seemingly failing to realize that al-Qaida was ALREADY in Iraq, and that the whole purpose of the troop surge was to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq.  After all, if Obama were truely aware of what has been going on in Iraq, was not his endorsement of "action" an endorsement of the troop surge?

Someone told Obama about McCain's comment.  Obama responded with a lefitst slogan/bumper sticker, after saying "of course I am aware of al-Qaida in Iraq" but:  "There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain invaded Iraq."

Problem:  the above does not address either McCain's point or Flashman's point.  If we withdraw from Iraq, where al-Qaida is NOW operating, are we not setting up "killing our fellows tomorrow, instead of killing the enemy today."  If we withdraw like Obama SEEMS to be saying we should do (while refusing to commit to doing so), and let al-Qaida build another "base" in Iraq, are we not setting our soldiers to be killed trying to do what is in our grasp NOW.  The question is what we do NOW, and not whether we should have gone into Iraq.  Obama's EVASION was an attempt to change the subject fromt he obvious illogic of what he had said.   First he had said that we could not allow al-Qaida to make progress toward establishing a base in Iraq without taking "action".  Then he said that he knwe al-Qaida was already in Iraq.  Logically, that would mean that Obama SUPPORTED the troop surge (which McCain had consistently advocated for some time, in criticizing the Bush Administration).  But Obama opposed, and is still opposing, the troop surge--opposing, in other words, effective "action" against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Solutioon:  CHANGE THE SUBJECT to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Problem:  Obama was right the first time, as Flashman notes.  We now have al-Qaida on the run.  We are WINNING.  To allow al-Qaida to regroup now means killing many of OUR soldiers later.

This is why many of us consider Obama dangerous.  He gets away with saying the most outrageous things (his response to McCain received MAJOR "news" coverage, without much noting that McCain was RIGHT, or that Obama had not really aswered him.

By the way, al-Qaida probably WAS in Iraq before our invasion; it was just not a major presence.  But that is not the main point.  The main point is that SADDAM HUSSEIN was in Iraq when we invaded Iraq, and would still be there if we had not invaded Iraq.  Has anyone asked Obama whether he thinks THAT would have been a good thing.  Saddam Hussein had made Iraq a terrorist state, and supporter of terrorism--apart from al-Qaida.  Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a GOOD THING (again, Obama, are you saying it was a BAD THING?).  More importantly, it is DONE.  We now cannot leave let al-Qaida regroup to "kill our fellows again" because we fail to kill our enemies NOW. 

Harry Flashman was right--immoral, womanizing bastard that he was.  See George MacDonald Fraser's chronicling of the adventures of Harry Flashamn in the multiple books making up the Flashman papers.  Unfortunately, modern lefitsts like Obama have not changed their willingness to "kill oour enemies tomorrow, rather than kill the enemy today." .

 

 

John McCain: Natural Born Citizen

You just could never make this stuff up.  No matter how bad the New York Times, and the mainstream media in general get, they can always get worse.  Today's New York Times story is about "buzz" that has gone around FOMR MONTHS (for example, like the last New York Tiems smear of McCain, before the New York Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination, and before he locked up that nomiation).  It is to the effect that John McCain's birth to U.S. miltary parents in the U.S. Canal Zone (Panama) "raises questions" about whether he is a U.S. citizen.

The New York Times just never quits, and neither do I (pointing out how despicable the New York Times, and the rest of the mainstream media is, in advancing its AGENDA to elect a Democrat President in 2008--I say that as a person who has promised NOT to vote for McCain).

The New York Times, you will recall, is the newspaper who ran that SMEAR of McCain (picked up, predictably, by the rest of the manistream media) raising all kinds of innuendo (no facts) about McCain and a female lobbying EIGHT YEARS AGO.  Just like this story, that story was not published by the New York Times until AFTER McCain had locked up the Republican nomination.

Are leftists really that afraid to run against McCain ON THE MERITS?

The obvious meaning of "natural born citizen" is, of course, "as distinguished from naturalized citizen"--that is, a citizen by birth.   Any other conclusion is totally unreasonable, and an INSULT to our military people around the world.  By statute, McCain was a U.S citizen BY BIRTH, and did not have to later become naturalized.

You can expect at least one, and often more than one, negative media story on McCain between now and the general election. SMEAR is what the maisntream media does these days to Republicans--the mainstream media being the PRIMARY agents of the "politics of personal destruction in the country today--usually acting as an arm of the Democratic Party.

Now there is an alternate theory that The New York Times is CONSPIRING to get John McCain elected President of the United States. Look at this story. Do you really thing it is anti-McCain (to anyone but an extreme leftist) to try to say that children born to military parents on U.S. territory outside of the U.S. mainland are not "natural born citizens" of the United States? I hope McCain is PAYING the New York Times for these smears. He should.

Leftists: A Selective Conscience

"Their consciences much more precious than their own soldiers' lives."

That was Harry Flashman talking about 19th Century leftists (see previous entry). He might as well have been talkinga bout modern leftists.

Let us go back to Vietnam.  I have come around to the view that the Vietnam War was a mistake--a mistake because we went into to prop up a corrupt government not worthy of the expenditure of American lives (as distinguished from Iraq, where we went in to REMOVE Saddam Hussein, as we went into Germany to REMOVE Adolf Hitler).  I ALWAYS (not in hindsight), by the way, thought that the Vietnam War was fought as badly as you can fight a war by Lyndon Johnson and Robert Mcnamara.

Remember Jane Fonda going to Vietnam and posing on weapons being used against American soldiers?  That was NOT an aberration. Anti-Vietnam war radicals regarded American soldiers as the BAD GUYS, and North Vietnamese/Viet Cong as the GOOD GUYS.  For the anti-Vietnam left, they--as Flashman asserts about British Liberal Club leftists--did not CARE that they were on the side of people KILLING American soldiers, and encouraging those KILLING American soldiers.  Of course, in the Vietnam era leftists SPIT on soldiers returning from Vietnam.

Leftists have learned TACTICALLY (not fundamentally).   Now they profess to love American soldiers, but hate the government's policies.  In reality, nothing has changed.

Sometimes, of course, the old anti-military left comes through in naked hate.  There was the Berkeley City Council trying to EJECT marines, and all marine recruiting, from Berkeley.  San Francisco has take several anti-military actions.   I have a couple of entries in this blog about the Cambridge City Council stopping a Boy Scouts "CARE" package type drive for this Christmas using a banner "Support our Troops".  Those previous entries describe the Cambridge lawyer who defened the Cambridge City Council on the grounds that they were RIGHT to refuse to support our troops, because "supporting the troops" supports the war.  Most of the left now tries to disguise things better than that--even trying to USE troops (who they don't really respect or like) to advance a leftist political agenda.  Remember all of those allged "homeless vets" of John Edwards?  The left thinks that they get further with the "homeless issue" if they connect it to vets than they otherwise get.  Same with health care.  Can't quite sell "universal health care"?  No problem.  Start talking about the need for government provided health care for VETS (service connected or not) and CHILDREN.  So the left is perfectly willing to USE our troops.  Be not deceived.  The left shows in many ways that they are willing to think the worst of our troops.

After 9/11, who was MOST at risk?  We all were, of course, but our troops and CIA operatives (troops of another kind) were on the front lines.  They were fighting in Afghanistan, and trying to track down al-Qaida wherever they were.  But Leftists like Michael Moore were already blaming US for 9/11, and proclaiming US as the "bad guys".  This anti-American attitude would soon lead to those ridiculous conspiracy theories about Bush being complicit in 9/11 (bombs knocking down the buildings instead of the ariplanes, and all of those stupidities).

But look at the supposed non-kooks on the left.  What are they worried about, even as our troops were in danger--including eventually in Iraq?  They were worried about the RIGHTS OF TERRORISTS.  Will waterboarding save the lives of Americans (not only in this coutnry, but American TROOPS and CIA agents trying to protect us)?  Leftists don't CARE.  Their conscience has to be totally clear, no matter how many American lives it costs.  In fact, leftists are even willing to INTIMIDATE intelligence operatives out of acting in the interest of our troops, and us, by asking CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of CIA people who tried to save American lives by waterboarding a FEW terrorists.  Even if we want to prohibit certain interrogatioin practices in the future, does it make any sense to CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE people who tried, in good faith, to save American lives?  Of course it does not, unless you care more for terrorists than for Americans.

It get worse. There there is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the earlier secret warrantless surveillance after 9/11.  There is no evidence that there was any extensive, purely domestic surveillance.  Should we not have been engaging in aggressive foreign surveillance, including surveillance of foreign onctacts with people in the United States, to protect American lives--including the lives of American soldiers and CIA operatives?  Of course we should. But leftists were more interested in TERRORISTSin Guantanamo, and elsewhere, than in American lives.  We are not even talking about the LIVES of terrorists, but about "rights" leftists want terrorists to have.

Leftists have tried desperately to STOP extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows surveillance to protect American soldiers (and US).  Leftists have opposed the act altogether, but Democrats in the House are now holding it up on the excuse that telecommunications companies should not be immunized for cooperating after 9/11 with the attempt to save American lives. Again, leftists just don't seem to be as interested in saving American lives as in their own agenda and "consciences".

Yes, leftists DO encourage people killing our troops in Iraq.  How often do you hear our troops referred to as "occupiers" of Iraq.  I can't tell you how many leftist bloggers I have seen asking something like:  "If your country were invaded and occupied, would not you fight back"--implying that the people killing our troops in Iraq are RIGHT..  Leftists will say that kind of thing, even as they say they "support our troops".

Then there are the soldiers themselves.  Remember John Murtha calling some of our soldiers in Iraq MURDERERS (most were eventually acquitted).  The despicable Associated Press has been willing to quote every leftist organization in the world, including some anti-American organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan, about alleged "atrocities" of American troops.  Every mistake made by American troops is publicized to the maximum, as if American troops cannot act to save their own lives (which will necessarily involve some mistakes).  Again, do leftists prefer Americans to die instead of terrorists, so long as the conscience of leftists is clear?  I think so.  I have cited chapter and verse in many blog entries.

What about Blackwater USA.  They provided security for AMERICANS, without ever losing the life of any person they were protecting.  Let them make a mistake, hwoever, tand they are subject to PERSECUTION in our media--again as if risk to the lives of Americans is more important than risk to the lives of people who MAY turn out not to be terrorists (but often are terrorists).

No, you can't go around killing civilians wantonly, just because you can't tell the civilians from the terrorists.   But neither can you treat your own people as if they have to be PERFECT.  Mistakes happen in war.  For the left, every mistake is a chance to BLAME OUR TROOPS.  Plus, our troops are not allowed to limit their mistakes by effective intelligence techniques.

Read Flashman's words again.   "They don't like to hear it."  Leftists do not like to hear the above.  They try to shut people up by calling them fear mongers, and extremists questioning the patriotism of loyal, lefit Americans.

Well, I agree with Flashman.  I really don't care what leftists want to hear.  They are going to hear the truth from me. I don't worry about buzz words like "patriotism".  What I care about is being on the right side. That is NOT the side of the terrorists, or preferring terrorist rights to American lives.

It gets worse. 

Terrorists or Americans: Who Would Democrats Prefer to Die

"Democrats" in the above title refers, of ccourse, to Democrats of the MoveOn.org type rather than to probably the majority of rank and file Democrats--although that majority is letting the extreme leftists take over their party.

I have referred to the incomparable George McDonald (not ashamed of his middle name, he) Fraser) before. Fraser is the writer of numerous fictional, but historically darn accurate, novels of the 19th Century British Empire (spilling over to America)--novels involving a womanizing, cowardly anti-hero named Bill Clinton.  Sorry, I keep making that Freudian slip.  Although it is possible that the character is modeled on early contact Fraser had with Bill Clinton during Clinton's days at Oxford (total specualtion here), Fraser's anti-hero is actually Harry Flashman--supposedly the bully from fmaous 19th Century book about British prep schools:  "Tom Brown's Schooldays".  Flashman manages to get involved in almost every military disaster/triumph of the 19th Century British Empire, along with some American ones--such as Custer's last stand.  "Flashman and the Mountain of Light" is the novel of the Flashman series dealing with the First Sikh War in India, as the Punjab Sikhs invaded British India (in an effort by their own rulers to take the Sikh army down a few pegs--I kid you not).  In the book, Fraser puts the follwing word's in Flashman's mouth, referring to the slaughter of the Sikh army at the Battle of Sobraon--many of them slaughtered in the river as they tried to run away:

"But the best reason for muerdering the Khalsa (Sikh army) was that if enough of the brutes had escaped, the whole beastly business would have been to do again, with consequtent loss of British and Sepoy lives.  That's something the moralists overlook (or more likely don't give a dam' about) when they cry:  "Pity the beaten foe!"  What they're saying, in effect, is:  "Kill our fellows tomorrow rather than the enemy today."  But they don't care to have it put to them like that;; they want their wars won clean and comfortable, with a clear conscience.   (Their consciences much more precious than their own soldiers' lives; you understand.)  Well, that's fine if you're sitting in the Liberal Club with a bellyful of port on top of your dinner, but if you rang the bell and it was answered not by a steward with a napkin but an Akali (Sikh fanatic) with a tulwar (Sikh curved sword), you might change your mind.  Distance always lends enlightenment to the view, I've noticed."

The application above to the way leftists are approaching the War on Terror and Iraq should be obvious.  I will let you contemplate it, as an exercise for the reader, before coming back and laing it out for you.

Global Cooling

You have already seen the unfolding event reported in this blog.  Warming of the earth appears to have STOPPED.  There never was a consistent warming trend in the United States. 

As I relported some weeks ago, some Canadian scientists are worried about a lack of expected sunspot activity--diminishment in energy from the sun--that could trigger a new ICE AGE.  They are going to pursue a project to study the subject further from this point of view.  Now this:

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

The above is a subheadline from dailytech.com (linked on Drudge).  The article itself summmarizes many of the indications of GLOBAL COOLING in the past year.  Many of those have been noned on this blog, but daily tech.com provides a useful summary of the individual indications that something is going on.

The subheadline is a result of the dailytech.com looking at the four major global temperature tracking outlets--in other words, the four major sources tracking that mythical "temperature of the earth."  All four report a precipitous (record?) DECLINE in the temperature of the earth over the past year--up to .75 degrees Celsius (Centigrade), or mor than a degree Farenheit.  This drop in the "temperture of the earth" has been so large as to virtually wipe out the entire "global warming" in the past century.

Needless to say, emissions of greenhouse gases have continued to INCREASE.  So why should the temperature of the earth DECREASE?  Could it be that there are other factors here that completely outweigh the puny acitivities of man?

Could be.

WHERE are the mainstream media stories on this?  Q.E.D.  "Global warming" is a RELIGION/POLITICAL MOVEMENT having little to do with "sicence".  If the data does not fit, you must acquit.  Sorry, I had an O.J. flashback there.  If the data does not fit the religion, it is simply disregarded.

 

Leftist Thinking Continued: Dumb and Dumber

See my last entry entitled "Roger Clemens:  Dumb and Dumber".  I posted that entry under the AOL story.  Here is the leftist comment that appeared right after it (I really could never make this stuff up), along with my response:

"How about investigating the unelected Bush regime? How about healthcare? Education for all? Housing and the collapsing dollar? Nope! Congress is looking into baseball. Yup, totally out of it.
How about a real 911 investigation, the lies Bush told to invade Iraq? The collapse of building 7 into dust when no plane hit it? How about investigating why we have 34,000 "lobbyists" and how Congress people take millions from them? Maybe that's why things are so screwed up in America and why the dollar has collapsed. Roger Clemans for president. bring the troops home and shoot the lobbyists."

Talk about DUMBER.  Another example of leftist thinking for my AOL blog, "The Maverick Consservative".  Congress has more important things to do (although doing NOTHING is a good option) than EITHER "investigating" whether Roger Clemens is telling the truth or "investigating" kook conspiracy theories.

Roger Clemens: Dumb and Dumber

Who is dumber?

Is it Roger Clemens, for ASKING to appear before Congress to testify under oath--KNOWING that Bary Bonds, Marion Jones and others have been charged with PERJURY for similar testimony.  Marion Jones (I really can't get over this injustice) is going--or has already gone--to JAIL.  Her "crime"?  She LIED abouta something--steroid use--which was NOT a crime.

Or is it Congress, which held a HEARING just to examine the question of whether Roger Clemens is telling the truth,  and has now requested the Justice Department to consider filing PERJURY charges against Roger Clemens because of that exercise in Congressional stupidity.

When you reach this level of stupidity all of the way around, it is impossible to determine who is MORE stupid.  

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.

As for many conservatives, William F. Buckley, Jr. was the person who primarily first PROVED to me that conservatives think better than leftists.  Never engaging in ad hominem attacks, Buckley was the master of the reasoned, rational argument (if often made with worlds you may not have ever herd of before).   Too patrician in background and manner to be wildly popular among the masses, he was nevertheless--by all accounts--a vastly charming and good person, with almost no personal enemies.  I, unfortunately, never met him personally.  His books often have a warmth that belied his patrician image.

Buckley has been superseded in influence by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest, but he remained a pioneer--THE pioneer-- of the modern conservative movement.  To right up until the very end, he was never superseded in his ability to think and reason.  He founded National Review at a time conservatives had no voice.

He will be missed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton: First Question

There is no question here--first, last or middle.  Conservatives NEED this woman to be Resident of the United States.  Even if you won't go that far, Republicans NEED this woman to be running against.

You weren't hearing things.  With all of the major sins of the media these days--including what amounts to a partisan campaign on behalf of Barack Obama--Hillary Rodham Clitnon made a point of beginning last night's debate whining about always being asked the FIRST QUESTION at these debates.   MSNBC is the WORST cable TV organization to ever exist, with the audience of a test pattern.  But all Hillary Clinton can find to complain about is being asked the FIRST QUESTION?

It is a no brainer.  We NNED this woman as President of the Unitled States.  I have said before that she will set both feminism and leftist back at least 100 years.  I take it back.  She will set them back at least FIVE HUNDRED years.

I apologize, by the way.   But I was seduced by the despicable mainstream media, who keep TAUNTING Hillary Clitnon by calling her "Hillary Rodham Clinton"--obviously an inteded smear based on the fact she is a woman.  See yesterday's entry on John McCain apologizing for the remarks of that local talk show host who introduced him.  Yes, I do realize that "Rodham" is not Hillary Clinton's middle name.  I realize that there was a time that she even just went by Hillary Rodham, or Hillary Rodham-Clinton.  Still, don't you think that the continued use of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is now a slam at her AS A WOMAN AND FEMINST.  You could certainly argue so.

P.S.  I heard a clip of that "local talk show host" introducting McCain.  He did NOT put emphasis on "Hussein".  He just referred to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama", with no undue emphasis on any part of the name.  It is, of course, Barack Obama's NAME.  Is "Hillary Rodham Clinton even Hillary Clinton's NAME under previous--pre-feminist--usage.  Feminism, and the strange pemutations of same, have mixed me up to the point I don't even know any more.  Further, that "local talk show host" did NOT slur/criticize Obama as a MUSLIM (Obama is, of course, Christian--albeit with a Muslim fatther from whiom I have heard said he was "estranged", with the media being much too delicate to go into Obama's family; which is a delicacy I actually think is correct but hardly applied to REPUBLICANS).  Rather, Mr. Cunningham (the "local talk show host") criticized "Barack Hussein Obama" as a corrupt hack from the Chicago political machine.  While I can see why that was too strident for McCain's taste, and even a little mcuh for mine, it is NOT racist.  It is NOT as bad as the things Democrats (politicians) have said about President Bush--much less the really hate filled things that have been said by supporters without any candidate "apology".  I say again:  So long as McCain seems more willing to criticize the people he now says are his friends than he is to criticize his enemies, or the media--a redundancy here whether McCain realizes it or not, conservatives are not going to warm to him.

Baracl Hussein Obama and John McCain

Another one of those media non-stories today is McCain "distancing himself" and "apologizing" for a radio talk show host who kept empasizing Barack Hussein Obama's full name in remarks "warming" up a McCain crowd waiting for McCain.  He evidently also called Obama a "political hack" (horrors!!!!!--evidently to the media it is, and McCain is unable to break the habit of his whole political career of catering to the media).

Barack Hussein Obama is his NAME.  I think it is a little oversensitive to worry about people making fun of his middle name.  "Distancing himself" is making more of this than is necssary, and I don't know that a McCain "apology" was appropriate (giving yet another NON-STORY national media attention).

Of course, it is true that people who expect to beat Obama on the strength of his middle name have even less substance than Obama himself (hard to do--takes talent).  I would not have minded McCain saying something along these lines.  But as it is, I get the feeling that McCain is going to spend more of his campaign apologizing (at least in media stories) than getting across any reasons why McCain should be President.

All much ado about nothing.

That is one of the things that worry conservatives about McCain. He has always spent more time and energy criticizing conservatives than criticizing leftists. Conservatives would be more charitable about it if McCain ever got around to criticizing leftists, and defending conservative principles against leftist attack (as distinguished from mere mouthing general support for conservatism when seeking conservative votes).

Will McCain spend the rest of his campaign apologizing for things Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, and others say?  You get the feeling he might.  Stay tuned.  It should be entertaining (so long as you take the enlightened view that it is probably better for the country, and conservatives, if McCain LOSES).

Rush Limbaugh and ME

Yes, Rush Limbaugh is LATE yet again, at least a month behind me.   Previously, I correctly endorsed Mitt Romney at a time when it was obvious to me that he was the ony hope this election for conservatives.  Limbaugh was TOO LATE to say essenatially the same thing, in a desperate attempt to stop McCain (TOO LATE). 

Nope.  I am not a good person.  I said "I told you so".

What is Rush doing now?  He is advising conservatives to vote for HILLARY CLINTON (probably again TOO LATE).  I advised the same thing BEFORE Virginia and Wisconsin--in  fact right after the February 5 primary. 

As Rush says, the BEST thing for Republicans, conservsatives, and McCain is for the Democratic fight to continue to the end, and probably for Hillary to get the nomination.  Rush is saying that TODAY. But he has just come to this realization--something I concluded A MONTH AGO.   Did I tell you I am not a good person.

I TOLD YOU SO. Too bad Rush does not pay attention to this blog SOON ENOUGH.  Again, it may well be TOO LATE.  A month ago Rush might have made a diffierence--as he might have made a difference coming out earlier totally against McCain, and for Romney.

Well, better late than never.   I differ with Rush in one way:  I don't worry about "our side" winning in November (especailly for President).  There remains no way I will ever vote for McCain.  But there has been no question, after February 5, that conservatives who wanted to prevail over the Democrats needed to vote for Hillalry.  My motivation was more simple.  I just like to see leftist Democrats in agony.

Go Hillary.   I have endorsed you.  Rush has now endorsed you.  Don't let us down.   Every conservative should vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas primay.  I certainly plan to do so.

Global Warming: Leftist Thinking Continued

Read my previous entry.  Then consider this comment (AFTER that earlier entry was posted here)--and my response:

 

"Climate change is occurring. Deny as much as you want :) while climates and temperatures vary and climate change occurs."

Notice the DISHONESTY here.  Is ANYONE denying that "climate change" occurs?   I occasionally print excerpts from the Ice Age Times (old "newspaper" unearthed in archeological dig to which I have excusive access at my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative)--excerpts usually quoting Al Gorice, Ice Age politician/prophet, talking about how the Ice Age is DOOMED (he was right). 

Do you realize that there is NO scientific theory of "climate change"?  There is no scientific theory predicting exactly how the climate is changing, and why (or how)  man has anything to do with it.  Any such theory would necessarily have to take into account ALL factors which go into changing climate. The issue here is MAN, and not whether the climate is changing (as it always is).  

"Global Warming" is a vague concept (not a coherent theory of climate) that greenhouse gases are heating up the atmosphere of the earth.  The ONLY EVIDENCE for this is a WARMING (consistent and accelerating warming).  Without that, there is NO EVIDENCE that man is causing "climate change". 

Why the change in terminology (propaganda) from "global warmng" to "climate change"?  It is because the PROAPGANDISTS behind "global warming" are getting NERVOUS that the warming trend is waning, while "climate change" will always be with us.

Global Warming: Not This Year

"Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966."

The above is from a Canadian Newspaper (National Post: see link on Drudge). "Global Warming" anyone? Melting arctic?  Remember those summer stories about how the North Pole ice cap was melting more than ever before (only to refreeze faster than normal this winter).?

Michael Cricton's chart ("State of Fear") continues to prove correct;  There is NO warming TRND in the U.S. since 1880.  Januaary was .3 degrees COOER than normal (NASA fiugures) in the U.S.  There is now yet another snow storm across the norther U.S.  2006 was an average termperature year for the U.S. (average since the 19th Century), with a COOL winter and spring, and cool December. 

I keep pointing this out because the mainstream media does not.  When the weather is COOL, or even COLD, it is just weather.  When the weather is WARM, it is because of "global warming".

Do you need any more evidence that "global warming" is a RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL movement, rather than "science"?  Consider this PROPAGANDA attempt to change the term from "global warming" to "climate change" (even though there is no such thing as a "global warming" theory of CLIMATE--the connection between "global warming" and climate is not clear at all). 

Does this show that the "global warming" propagandists are NERVOUS about this idea of a consistent warming trend?  Sure it does. They want to separate "global warming" from the idea of "warming", and instead use "climate change"--knowing that the weather ALWAYS CHANGES-as does the climate.

Problem:  There is NO established theory of "climate change".  The vague concept of "global warming" is based on the idea that greenhouse gases cause a WARMING effect.  The ONLY EVIDENCE for this concept (hardly a full fledged theory) that this greenhouse gas WARMING will cause the earth to "heat up" is warming temperatures.   In other words, the "evidence" for "global warming" is NOT evidence for general, man-made "climate change".  It is WARMING. If you don't have the WARMING (consistent trend continuing), the "theory" is DISCREDITED.   There is then NO basis for assuming that any "climate change"  is man-made.

Coen Brothers and "The Hatchet Man"

The Coen Brothers make "interesting" movies (Chinese curse:  "May you live in interesting times).  Their movies are well made, visually striking, and I find them sterile.  There is little real warmth to their movies.  They sort of treat human beings as quirky (another given in a Coen brothers movie) bugs to be examined under a microscope.  A case in point is "Fargo."  I have not seen the Coen brothers movie that won best picture (as Hollywood divides furteher and further from most of the American people), but my daughter saw it.  It sounds like a typical, "interesting" Coen brothers movie.  You (at least I) just can't ENJOY a Coen Brothers movie.  Nor do the movies have much of a point to them, because the style just overwhelms any real storytelling.  You may well think a Coen Brothers movie is worth seeing (I thought so with "Fargo"), but their movies are just too cold and sterile to be really enjoyed by most people.

This brings me to "The Hatchet Man."  That could well be the title of the next Coen Brothers movie.  In fact, it could be a Coen Brothers movie, if both the emotional power and melodrama were removed from it.  The movie, made in the 1930's, has a Coen Brothers plot, but shows the difference between Hollywood then and Hollywood now. 

I just saw "The Hatchet Man" (which I recorded off of Turner Classic Movies). It is about a "hatchet man" for a Chinese tong in early San Francisco.   The story is all about those "old fashioned" things like honor, dutry, right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral:  You know, the kind of thing Hollywood is not interested in anymore in its passion for quirky "style" and political correctness--not to mention special effects.   The hatchet man is forced to execute his best friend.  That best friend gives the hatchet man all of his assets in his will, and also gives his daughter--not onl to be reaised, but in marriage when she becomes of age. 

Fast forward.  Times change.  The hatchet man puts up his hatchet.  The old ways are gone, in his view.  No longer are women's feet bound.   He insists that his ward make up her own mind about the marriage, rather than follow the old Chinese way of obeying her parents.  The daughter supposedly consents willingly to the marriage, but promptly falls prey to the modern urge for excitement--as she falls for a younger hoodlum.  In the hands of the Coen Brothers, this would be a sylistic examination of alienation and despair.  In the hands of the old Hollywood (albeit pre-Code, where adultery was a subject treated openly), this was basically a melodramatic morality play.  I assure you:  old Hollywood was better.  I found "The Hatchet Man"--crudely made in many ways and with enormous flaws--a more enjoyable piece of hokum to watch than "Fargo".

Did I mention that the CHINESE tong hatcet man was played by Edward G. Robinson?  No, even Edward G. Robinson could not sell that he was Chinese.  He didn't really try.  He tried, rather, to show a character who tried to embrace "change", while never abandoning the old values that he retained underneath.  In its own way, "The Hatchet Man" exposes the FRAUD that is Barack Obama.  If you believe in change and excitement merely for the sake of change and excitement, then you believe in nothing.  As usual, Robinson gives an extraordinary performance, even while failing to do the impossible (convince you he was Chinese).

Then there was Loretta Young, totally miscast as the CHINESE daughter betrothed as a child, by her father, to the Robinson character.  Loretta Young could not make you forget for a moment that she was not Chinese, and brought nothing to the role.  A later Young movie, "The Farmer's Daughter", was to prove that Hollywood could make a better FEMINIST movie in the 1940's than it can make today, and a better movie about corruption in politics and political campaigns.

Was this RACISM by old Hollywood?  That is looking at it wrongly.  The movie was NOT racist.  The movie was sympathetic to traditional Chinese values (Hollywood's view of them).  Contrary to the modern, simplistic view, it is NOT racist to have a non-Asian play an Asian. It is just disconcerting, and distracting to the viewer.  You KNOW Edward G. Robinson is not Chinese.  It is a tribute to his talent that he probably made this movie better than any Chinese actor would have.  The casting was, of course, BOX OFFICE stuff--although racist in a more subtle sense.  Yes, the failure to cast Asians in Asian roles (although there are real oreientals in the movie) was a form of racism in HIRING--in refusing to give equal opportunity to enthnic and racial minorities.

Look how bad the trade off is.  Hollywood now is supposedly "enlightened", and we would surely not get an actor like Edward G. Robinson in a clearly Chinese role (although Hollywood might figure out how to get Tom Cruise, for example, ADOPTED into a Chinese family).  Instead, we are stuck with political correctness run amok, and a total lack of storytelling ablility in favor of style and special effects.  It makes you wish fervently for the good old days--just slightly modernized without having lost the "old values".   In other words, like most successful morality plays, "The Hatchet Man" applies in many different contexts.  It applies to the Barack Obama "message" that change is needed for the sake of change--that style and excitement are their own reward, even if there is no substance underneath.  It applies to Hollywood itself, where change has meant losing its soul, even as the techniques available to movie makers have advanced unimaginably.  As Edward G. Robinson had to return to his fundamental values, maybe bouth Hollywood and this country should follow his example.  But I forget.  "The Hatchet Man" was made in the 1930's in a politically incorrect way.  It could therefore not have any lessons for us, could it?

The question of casting is interesting.  Is there anything wrong, for example, in an Englishmean, like Sean Connery, playing a Russian?  A Puero Rican playing a Mexican?  An American playing a German?  I think that the answer is:  obviously not.  The problem with a black actor playing George Washington, or a "white" actor playing a Chinese, is that it is DISTRACTING.  It makes it hard to suspend disbelief.  It is NOT automatically racist (although it MAY indicate racism in hiring certain kinds of actors in general).  It is a matter of CASTING.  Actors which obviously do not fit their roles are MISCAST,  In "The Hatchet Man", it is hard to say whether Edward G. Robinson is really miscast. You don't believe him as a Chinese, but he brings so much to the role (as he struggles with his various moral dilemmas in the movie) that it may have been worth it.  It may be a sign of our ultimate progress in getting past surface characteristics if we stop noticiing whether the actor or actress is of the right "race" to play a role.  Plua, if you have no American Indians (for example) really available (and qualified) to play Geronimo, you might be forced to cast someone else.  There is nothing that says an actor playhing an Apache has to be an Apache, just like there is nothing that says an actor playing a Russian has to be Russian. The question is MUCH more complex than today's "political correctness" would have you believe.  I repeat:  For purposes of a MOVIE, it is not a matter of racims but a matter of believable CASTING.

You coould regard this movie as anti-feminist.  Turner Classic movies did a really stupid "documentary", with Jane Fonda narrating", which totally misrepresented the way the Hollywood Production Code suppressed women (just as Turner Classic Movies had a really stupid, politically correct, series about how gays have been misportrayed in movies).  Isn't it ironic how Turner Classic Movies has bought into some of the very things that are KILLING Hollywood, and the old movie making values celebrated on Turner Classic Movies?   The Loretta Young character gets PUNISHED for leaving her husband, and disobeying her father's wishes. 

If you look at this as an anti-feminist message, then you have no chance of understanding the dark side of feminism (much less why modern movies are generally not worth watching),.  Are honor and honesty anti-feminist?  Does feminism mean that women have a "right" to pursue excitement, and their own fleeting desires, above all else?   There are obviously a lot of things wrong with "bound feet" to keep women in their place,  but does that mean all of the "old values" are worng?

I agree that this is a lot to hang on an obscure movie that many people today would h ave no patience for.  To me, however, the movie struck a cord.  I think it symolizes pretty well where Hollywood has gone wrong--no longer "binding the feet of women", but discarding all of the GOOD old storytelling values at the same time.

Hoa Tran and Tony: Kooks Forever

In an earlier entry in my "you are a kook if:" series, I labeled my friend Tony as a kook, saying that anyone that knew who, or what, Hoa Tran was is a kook.  Tony has proven my point with the following:

"Another day, another HOA TRAN.  Marc, I will address this email to you, as your brother is hopeless (and I gave him so many hints).  Note that the subject of my email was "Republican Primary".  That would have given most "geniuses" (I use the term loosely) a clue to check out the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.  Now true, I did not specify the TEXAS Republican Primary, but I assumed that since I said " I was putting my money on HOA, that it would be the logical place to check, since I am a resident of the great state of Texas.  Once arriving at the TEXAS REPUBLICAN PRIMARY site, boy genius would have found "my man"....the next president of the United States of America.... HOA TRAN, Purveyor of Oriental Medicine.   God I love this country, where a man of humble means can become the president"

Followed by:

"Now that I have provided ample evidence that I am not a "kook", I hereby DEMAND that a retraction be provided posthaste from the infamous "Maverick Conservative"

There is, of course, a reason that kooks generally do not respond to my "you are a kook if:" series.  It is because they know that they will merely PROVE themselves to be kooks.  Tony, however, is so much of a kook that he even failed to realize what even the people with the tin foil hats (to keep out the alien radio/telepathic mind control waves) realize:  exposing how kooky you are to the world is a bad idea.  Here is my response to Tony (NOT a retraction):

Q.E.D.  I actually guessed that Hoa Tran was probably running in the Texas Republican Presidential Primary.  But only a KOOK would notice that (original point).  Only a double kook would go to the trouble of seriously RESEARCHING the matter (which is why I didn't).

 

Problem:  Am I now a kook because I now know (sort of) who Hoa Tran is?  Sigh.  The sacrifices I make for you people writing this blog--pointing out the kooks and "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" winners out there.  You fail to realize how DANGEROUS this is.  As John McCain said about money in politics, being exposed to this stuff is so CORRUPTING that I worry about ME being corrupted.

 

It is hardly worthy of mention in the "you are a kook if" series, but you ARE a kook if:

 

119.  You are Hoa Tran.

 

I really wish I did not even know that.

 

 

McCain and Campaign Finance: Hoist by His Own Petard

One of today's stories (handled with some sympathy for the Democratic positon by the media, as usual) is about the Democratic complaint that John McCain should be bound by Federl spending limmits in the nomination process, while Democrats are not.  That would give Democrats an ENORMOUS advantage in getting their message out before the political conventions.  This situation comes about because McCain got in money trouble and applied for the right to get Federal funds (which would have carried with it Federal spending limits that McCain has already reached).  It turns out that McCain never took any Federal money, but the allegation is that he USED the promise of Federal funds to get a loan.   Thus, the argument is that McCain should be bound by the Federal limit, even though he has accepted no Federal funds.

Note what HYPOCRITES leftist Democrats are.  Obama and Clitnon are NOT bound by spending limits.  McCain spent NO federal money.    This is a POWER PLAY designed to give Democrats a spending advantage in the time before the convention.  Is it FAIR for McCain to not be able to get out his message, while Democrats face no limits, because of an alleged TECHNCIAL violation of the campaign finance rules?  Democrats already have a funding advantage (which is why Obama is unwilling to join with McCain in pledging to abide by Federal fudning limits).

Yes, there is a somewhat delicious irony to watch Democrats try to hoist McCain on his own petard of "campaign finance reform".  However, Democrats are being hoisted on a petard of their own.  The Federal Election Commission does not have a QUORUM, because Democrats are refusing to act on a Bush nominee.  So there may be no one to hear this totally hypocriical, hard ball politic "complaint".

If it happened to a DEMOCRAT, Democrats would be accusing Repubicans of trying to subvert democracy and shut up their opponents--with mainstream media sympathy.  John McCain should really LEARN from all of this that the media are NOT his friends (once he has the Republican nomination).

 

Obama and the New York Times: Political Propaganda Masquerading as "News"

You can't make this stuff up.  AOL is now FEATURING a New York Times stories abut "hushed" worries among Obama people that he may be assassinated--no specific threats, just "worries".  This obviously comes directly from the Obama campaign, and the story serves no function beyond political propaganda (certainly not "news"--maybe people in the Hilllary Clinton campaign worry about her too).  This is a strange meaning of "husted" by the wary--spreading the worries all over the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media.  Could this ENCOURAGE a NUT out there?  It just shows what politicians will do to advance their political fortunes, and what the New York Times will print as "news".

Another NON-STORY from the New York Times (which specializes in them, as AOL specializes in featuring them).  It is no accident that the New York Times was the WINNER of my coveted "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award this week (Saturday's bog entry)

Lest you forget, Robert F. Kennedy was killed by a lone nut (Sirthan Sirhan).   JFK was killed by a lone nut.  Ditto Martin Luther King.  Ronald Reagan was SHOT by a lone nut (I don't remember an New York Times stories afterward about "worries" he would be targeted again, although I won't gurantee there were none).  Gerald Ford was the target of an assassination attempt.  In other words, EVERY President and Presidential candidate is a potential target of a nut.  Obama is no different, and probably LESS hated thatn--say--Hillary Clinton.

President Bush was a HATED man in 2004 (by left wing nuts), and since.  I have not seen the New York Times talking about "worries" about him.  There was a MOVIE virtually urging the assassiination of President Bush, and left wing blogs have carried post after post wising him dead (along with AOL comments to that effect).

The point is: WHAT makes this "news"? We need to protect ALL Presidents and Presidential candidates as best we can. Further, ALL such people live with the knowledge that a LONE NUT out there might assassinate thme, despite all precaustions.What makes Obama "special", besides the New York Times agenda? 

I think he New York Times combining a "hate America" agenda (see how SICK we are that the GOOD people like Obama, King, and RFK are at risk; we don't worry much about people like President Bush) with a pro-Obama agenda, hoping forsympathy for Obama's hoped for status standing  in the shoes of Martin Luther King and RFK).

Associated Press and AOL: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Nominees

See the previous entry about the despicable AP story on Clarence Thomas, which--among other things--was leftist racism at work (and an invitation/pandering to leftist racists).  That has made the AP and AOL early nominees for this week's "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award (see Saturday's entry for last week's winner of the coveted "Finger").  Here is how I described it in a post under the AOL story:

John Paul Stevens (leftist Justice) is in his late 80's.  Others are VERY OLD   Stevens has been on the court FOREVER.  Where are the stories about whether he is TOO OLD to be on the court?  Where are the stories about whether there should be TERM LIMITS (Constitutoinal Amendment limiting ALL members of teh Court, Congress, and all otehr major positions in the Federal Government to 12 years--which would include Justice Thomas)?

This story, again, is INNUENDO about nothing (oral argument is pretty meaningless in the Supreme Court, or any Federal Appeasl Court, and "questions" are more an EGO tthing than anything else),  in the great tradition of the New York Times (winnter of last week's "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award for conspicious stupidity and reprehensible behavior in my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative").  The despicable Associated Press, and AOL, are now early nominees for THIS WEEK's award of "the Finger"--but, then, they almost always are.

Clarence Thomas

The despicable Associated Press has one of those periodic, meaningless "hit" pieces on Supreme Court Justice Calrence Thomas featured on the equally despicable AOL today.  The story makes a big deal out of the meaningless "fact" that Justice Thomas has asked no questions at oral argument for two years.   The whole article is just a smear of Justice Thomas--based, really, on innuendo, but luckily the article can have no effect.  Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and Justice Thomas is in the enviable position of being able to totally ignore the despicable AP.  I wish I were so lucky, able to cultivate a Zen attitude about the AP.

So what.   Justice Thomas WROTE A BOOK.  He actually was out in public promoting it a year or two ago.  It was an INSPRIING book, with more valuable lessons for African-Americans (it was at least partially about Thomas' experience growing up in the racist South) than any ten leftist African-American leaders.

Lawyers (I was one for more than 30 years), will tell you:  Questions at oral argument (from any appellate court) are OVERRATED.   My daughter clerked for a Federal Appeals Court in her senior year at Cornell Law School.  She was somewhat surprised at how LITTLE oral argument really affected anything.  Often, the opion was already in process BEFORE oral argument.  I can assure you that Justices are ususally more "showing off"  with their questions than really interested in the answers. 

Is Clarence Thomas merely secure enough not to show off and/or engage in meaningless games?  Maybe so.  I would respect

Importing more leftist (non) thinking from under the AOL featured story referred to above, along with my usual comment:

"Can you say: "step and fetch"........"

I KNEW that if I waited, I would find the perfect comment from AOL to import to my AOL "blog", "The Maverick Conservative", to illustrate one of my consistent points in the blog:  The PRMIARY racists in the coutnry today are leftists and the mainstream media.

Yep.  Another leftist made FAMOUS on my blog--you too might make it with a sufficiently stupid or racist remark.

I make at least one--usually leftist--person/entity REALLY FAMOUS every week with my weekly "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award".  This week's winner, announced on Saturday, was obvious.

Hoa Tran: You Are a Kook If: (Tony edition)

I got this email today from my friend Tony (who has made isolated appearnaces on this blog by way of me quoting his emails--as he is not nearly brave enough to actually comment on the blog itself).  Here is the eamil, and my response--illustrationg that there are kooks out there verywhere, even among your friends (yes, I have admitted to at least one "kook" belief myself):

Tony: "Who said we don't have a viable choice in the Rebublican Party?  Screw McCain, I'm putting my money on HOA TRAN."

Me:  

I have to admit that I have no idea who (or what) HOA TRAN is.  I thought McCain was causing ME to lose it.  As usual, I am in better shape than Tony.  A new entry for my "you are a kook if:" series: 

You ARE a kook if:

 

118:  You know who, or what, HOA TRAN is.

 

UFOs: Why I Don't Believe

There are periodically UFO flaps.  One of the latest is around Steubenville, Texas--complete with at least one video. 

This tellls you why I do ot believe in UFOs as alien spacecraft, and why people who believe in a government conspiracy to cover up UFO information are part of my "you are a kook if:" series (including people who merely believe that there is solid evidence for alien spacecraft--a more minor kookism, but difficult to maintain WITHOUT believing in a government conspiracy).

We have the Space Shuttle.  We, and other countries, have spy satellites that are constantly oserviing, and mapping, the earth every day--satellites which can identify individual people from space.   GOOGLE has been accused of potential invasion of privacy with thsese DETAILED pwhotographs mapping the earth.  Radar, and intelligence surveillance, are EVERYWHERE (especially since 9/11).  Yet, there are people who believe that there can be a convincing VIDEOTAPE of an alien spacecraft flitting around Steubenville, Texas.  Even the cottage industry of UFO kooks (some are kooky all of the way to the bank--it is major TOURISM in Roswell) realizes that you can't possibly believe that an ordinary citizen can get a videotape of an alien spacecraft, or numerous ordinary citizens could see such spacecraft, without today's sophisticated technology "seeing" the alien spacecraft in MUCH more detail.  Thus, to believe in alien spacecraft flying openly around Steubenville, you have to believe in a MASSIVE government CONSPIRACY to cover it all up (the X-Files syndrome). 

I don't believe in massive conspiracies.   Way back when, circa 1960, I read the book by one of the Air Force people involved in "Project Blue Book"--the defunct U.S. Air Force project in the 1950's to look into the question of UFOs.  While I guess you could call it a "secret" project, the details were revealed long ago.  Despite the inability to expalin all "sightings", there was NO "conspiracy".  There was never ANY confirmation of alien spacecraft visiting the earth. 

Yet, people have been trying to activiely find such evidence for at least SIXTY YEARS--since rirght after World War II--including, of course, the infamous Roswell theories. It really is impossible to believe that all kinds of spacecraft are flitting around out there wtihout definitive evidence of their existence--at least without a government conspiracy.

The problem is that massive government conspiracies are themselves impossible to believe.  Conspiracies of that kind--allegedly over decades--COLLAPSE.  People talk.  You are actually talking about a conspiracy that would have to extend ove MANY governments.  We are also talking about an allegedly CLUMSY conspiracy, where every UFO kook knows about it.

Nope.  Conspiracies like that just don't exist in today's world of little privacy, and extensive communications (now including cell phone cameras everywhere). 

Since a massive government conspiracy is essentially impossible, you are left with the idea of alien spacecraft revealing themselves to everyone BUT the government--another effective impossibility.  Plus, whether you had an unbelievable government conspiracy or not, WHY would alien spacecraft reveal themselves only in this "game playing" way--not really hiding but not really coming into the open.  That is yet another impossibility.

I am convinced that there is life, including intelligent life, on other planets.  Whether you believe in God or not, WHY would you believe in an EMPTY universe, with all of those galaxies, stars, and planets, with intelligent life limited to ONE planet.  I think that makes no sense from either a religious or scientific point of view (the essence of science is that there are no "unique" events that cannot be reporduced).

Given that there is inteeligent life elsewhere, why might it not visit the earth.  Well, there is that speed of light limitation.  But I am open to the idea of alien visitors.  In fact, I would DEARLY like to see it happen--especially with a "faster than light" space drive. I have been a science fiction reader almost all of my life.  Now almost 61, I am giving up hope that I will ever walk on another planet, or experience the thrill of contact with an alien civilization.  My ONLY hope (obviously a longshot, even then) of "going to the starts", or to another planet, is for an alien civilization to bring us a space drive (along with a longevity, rejuvenation method).  Even just knowing about an alien civilization would be the thrill of my life.

But you are a kook if you think thatthere are alien spacecraft flitting about for no reason, without detection by all of our sophisticated surveillance.  You are even more of a kook if you believe in a massive conspiracy to cover up such alien spacecraft buzzing around places like Steubenville (for no reason). 

Could not aliens be observing the earth, and make a mistake?  Sure.  It is POSSIBLE.  But "lights in the sky" and videotapes of DELIBERATE alien exposure, are ridiculous.  "Sightings" like that merely emphasize that we have NO real evidence of a visitation by an alen spacecraft.  In all of this UFO chaff, is it POSSIBLE that there is a "real" event involving an alien spacecraft whose "cloaking" failed?  Of course, but how could anyone possibly KNOW?  There is just too numch "noise"--too MANY "reports".  It is impossible to pick one incident out and show that it is REAL.  Nor does the existence of so many "sightings" indicate that "where there is smoke, there is fire". 

The more "sightings" there are, the more obvious it is that you can't depend on ANY of them to be real.  Since any REAL sighting would be incredibly RARE, it is just as likely that ALL of the numberous sightings are something other than alien spacecraftm as it is that there are a FEW real sightings.  The number of false sightings (false in the sense of being alien spacecraft, time travelers, etc.), that there is no way to bootstrap from the number of FALSE sightings, to the argument that there are so many sightings that some have to be truely alien spacecraft.

Nope.   I thik it is impossible to see any present EVIDENCE that we are being visited by alien spacecraft. It is POSSIBLE, but the eivdence is not there.  The massive number of "sightings" merely preclude any chance of spotting a REAL sighting in all of the false ones.  I am afraid that there is little other than actual, confirmed, "contact" that would convince me that alen beings are now visiting/observing the earth.

 

New York Times: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate WINNER

I saw someone say that it is insulting to the National Enquirer to say that the New York Times is now writing National Equrier type strories, because National Enquirer stories are geneally BETTER JOURNALISM.   The question is not whther The New York Times has sunk to the level of the National Equirer.  The question is whether many National Enquirer stories sink to the level of the New York Times.

Few winners have DESERVED "the Finger" more than the New York Times did with this week's really disgraceful (non) story on John McCain (see multiple blot entries this week).  The New York Times actually won "the Finger" TWICE this week--once with the orginal story and again with its statement that it "stands behind its story".

WHAT story?  There was nothing there except innuendo from anonymous sources. The New York Times ran a front page story alleging nothign more than that a McCain staffer or staffers, EIGHT YEARS AGO, got worried that McCain's friendship with an attractive woman lobbyinst MIGHT go too far, and supposedly warned her off.  To print such a story on the front page was a LIE, as it constituted a representation that this was a significant story.  The significant story, of course, is that the New York Times chose to run this story.  That tells you all you need to know about the New York Times, as well as the rest of the mainstream media (who FIRST tried to run with this smear as a "significant" story, only to have to come arond to the real story:   Has the New York Times AGAIN revealed itself to have no journalistic ethics at all (remember the "General Betray Us" ad, where the New York Times "ombudsman" found that the Times violated its OWN ethical standards in accepting the ad?).  Amd the mainsteam media qickly showed that they ALL have no journalistic standards by TRYING to run with the New York Times story.  The mainstream media again gets dishnorable mention for "the Finger" award, as they do essentially every week.

What "story" was the New York Times standing behind?   There was NO improper conduct alleged.  No one was quoted as saying that McCain engaged in improper conduct.  The "story" could have been completely "true" (in the actual FACTS alleged), and still would have meant absolutely nothing.  That is why this blog criticized McCAIN for saying the story was "not true".  McCain was evidently saying the INNUENDO was "not true", since no improper conduct on his part was really alleged.  Maybe some aide did panic, and "worry" that McCain might be getting himself in trouble (for no reason?  Who could know--especially now, EIGHT YEARS LATER, when both McCain and the woman deny any impropriety).  When the New York Times "stands behind its story", what are they standing behind?  Are they standing behind the INNUENDO?  Again, they deserve "the Finger" for that alone.  Are they standing behind what UNNAMED SOURCES thought?  HOW can the New York Times possibly do that?  How can they know? They, and their reporters, weren't there--have NO first hand knowledge.  This is actually the LIE behind ALL "anonmymous source" stories.  The credibility of the media source is only part of the problem (the New York Times has none). The credibility, and accurancy, of the SOURCE is actually the more serious issue.  But the media outlet is CONCEALING that material part of the "news", and allowing people with an agenda to strike from the shadows, wearing a mask provided by the media (in this case, by the New York Times).

To refresh your memory, or in case you have not read previous weekly award presentations, the "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate is a statuette given by this blog each week to commemorate especially stupid and/or reprehensible behavior during the week.  The statuette, of an INDEX finger, was originated on the old Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In" prgram. This blog has reprised the award, believing that the idea was too good to be allowed to go to waste.

Alan Colmes was a finalist for this week's award (see yesterday's entries).  This was for his ludicrous suggestion that illegal immigrants are trapped/cowering in fear in this country, and are about to be trapped IN the country by a Berlin style wall.  Of course, in actual fact the ONLY "fear" that illegal immigrants have in this country is being forced to LEAVE, without being able to COME BACK.   Their only "fear" is of not being allowed to keep living and working here in violation of the law (while people in Mexico who have OBEYED the law are STUCK there--60% or so of them evidently preferring to live here).  Most other weeks, Colmes would have been the nads down winner of "the Finger".  This week, the New York Times had the coveted "Finger" in the bag from the moment Drudge linked to the coming story. There was never any chance anyone else could win the award this week.  Colmes, therefore, has to settle for being runner up this week. 

To the New York Times:  This award is for YOU; you DESERVE it.  Imagine the presentation of the statuette of "the Finger" by Dick Martin at this point.  If you can successfully imagine that, it will give you the flavor of the signifincance of this award to the New York Times.  It is like those awards for the WORST movies and performances of the year that came out today.

Next wek, the "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" will come to rest pointing at another deserving vicitm--oops!  I mean WINNER.

Alan Colmes and Open Borders: Political Hack or Just Stupid?, Part II

This is a continuation of the earlier entry today.

Colmes says he wants the Mexican border to be like the Canadian border--just polite checkpoints without any real effort to keep people from crossing (subtext:  you racists just don't like Mexicans).  The problem, of course, is that we can't solve Mexico's (or the world's) problems, and more than HALF of Mexico's population want to live in the United States.  That is because Mexico is a FAILED country.  There is just no way for us to even try to handle MEXICO'S poverty problem.  We will destroy ourselves if we try (that is, if we adopt Colmes' "open border" "solution. 

Didn't I agree with Colmess, though, that we can't really "secure" our borders?  Wee are not really making a serious effort to keep people from "sneaking" across the Canadian border.  And there is always going to be more traffic across the Mexican border, in places like El Paso (viturally a twin city with Juarez, although one--Juarez--is run under the corrupt Mexican system: while the other--El Paso--is run under the superior U.S. system, even though the people living in the "twin cities" are almost the same).  There are always going to be "temporary" visitors who "overstay", and people who manage to get across the border illegally.  This is why McCain is still WRONG to say that he has "learned" his lesson to "secure the border" first. 

You do your best to "secure the border", because you don't want hordes of people flooding across illegally, all along the border (smugglers, criminals, terrorists, and everyone else.  But that does not STOP illegal immigration.  The ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to DISCOURAGE people from coming here illegally to try to make a better life for themselves.  You STOP those you can at the border.  But you know you can't stop them all.  Then you ENFORCE the law as to those who get past the border.

Alan Colmes says (in addition to that total falsehood about people held here in "fear" of the INS--see Part I for that particulat outrageous "argument"):  We can't deport 12 milliong people."  That is one of the standard DECEPTIONS of the open borders advocates.  The idea is to cause more to LEAVE (by deportation or volluntarily) than are coming in.  Otherwise, you are LOSING the battle (and will continue to lose it after every amnesty).  The "border" is NOT, in fact, "secure"until we both do that, AND show that we can enforce the immigration laws WITHIN this country well enough to FIND and DEPORT criminals and terrorists who should not be here.   That means deporting those undesirables that we come across.  Since EVERY illegal immigrant is "undesirable" (in the sense they are here illegally), we should deport every illegal immigrant (who we don't arrest and put in prison for a serious crime) that is arrested for ANYTHING, or comes to the attention of any law enforcement person.  Unless we are doing that, how can we be "finding" and getting rid of the "criminals".  In other words, we HAVE to be able to get rid of illegal immigrants generally to get rid of the "criminals" (you don't know who is a criminal, by the way, until he or she is caught).

More importantly, sicne we know that we can't stop everybody at the border, we KNOW that we must be able to discourage those who get past the border (or find and deport them).  HOW can we do that if we don't have procedures in place to start discouraging/deporting those illegal immigrants who are already here ("the 12 million").  It is a LOSING policy to try to "secure the border", but to let every person who gets past the border have what he or she WANTED:  the right to stay and live in the Untied States.

Jay Leno said it best, or at least most succinctly:  "I hear people say that you can't send 12 million people out of the country.  Why not?.  MEXICO DID."  People came here illegally (mainly from, or through, Mexico--but certainly by other means, including a substantial percentage who are not Mexican), because they think they can BENEFIT.  If we make it HARD for them to benefit, so that most of them can't, they will leave.  More importantly, fewer and fewer will try to come here at all (as the maessage gets out).  This is the TRUE "comprehensive immigration plan".  Stop as many at or near the border as you can.   Then have a cooperation among all law enforcement agencies to ENFORCE the immigration laws.  Finally, make it impossible, or at least very hard, for illegal immigrants to benefit by living in this country.  This means keeping them from employment, and from government benefits. 

Now Alan Colmes seemed to make noises about "employer sanctions".  Trust me, Alan Colmes does NOT eblieve in keeping illegal immigrants from working here  (well, for him, there are no "illegal" immigrants--so what can he mean).  What is going on here is merely that this is a leftist "talking point".  They certainly like it when big corporations are FINED, but they don't want illegal immigrants to actually be kept from working here.  So leftists will say "snactions" are fine, but OPPOSE serious efforts to stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants.  That meant USING the information we already have from computer matching of names and social security numbers.  Letters were ready to go out to employers (with employees who had major discrepancies in names and social security numbers) to either clear up discrepancies in the names and social security numbers, or face SANCTIONS if they kept employed peoople using a fraudulent social security number (illegal immigrants and, really by definition. criminals using fraudulent numbers).  The ACLU and the AFL-CIO SUED before a Clinton appointed Federal Judge in San Francisco to BLOCK this attempt at EFFECTIVE sanctions against employers.  In other words, Alan Colmes, and people like him, do not want EFFECTIVE sanctions against emplouers.  The leftist judge issued an order to BLOCK the new regulations.  No one in Congress--certainly not Democrats--seems to be interested in pushing this issue.  Unfortunately, not many Republican polilticians seem very interested either.  It hardly came up in the Republican nomination fight.

Do illegal immigrants receive welfare benefits?  They certainly recive BENEFITS (emergency health care, education at public schools for their children, etc.).  But part of the DECEPTION of the illegal immigration debate is that illegal immigrants don't receive welfare.  They will certainly receive welfare under any "amnesty" program, once they qualify.  And Alan Colmes surely has in mind that many of these people coming across the "open border" he evisons will eventually be leftists voters helping him advance his overall political agenda.  HOwever, what is rarely talked about is that the CHILDREN of illegal immigrants born in this coutnry are CITIZENS.  That meanst that they often receive many types of welfare benefits that benefit the illegal immigrant PARENTS.  Just having theri children be citizens is a MAJOR benefit for illegal immigrants.  In El Paso, it is notorious that Mexican  pregnant women will camp (figuratively, or even literally) outside of the county hospital (Thomason General Hospital) waiting fo go into labor. Consider what would happen under Comes' "open borders".  There would be a steady stream om pregnant women coming across the border to have their babies.

This is an anachronistic policy that no one can now defend.  They don't even try.  They just ignore the issue.  How can we have a large "temporary worker" program if every baby born to such a worker on U.S. soil is an American citizen (even if both parents are not permament residents of the U.S.)?  It probably takes a Constitutional Amendment, and Democrats will block it, but the policy--of babies born here automatically being citizens--is stupid. 

Alan Colmes, of course, likes to talk about wages, and how wages are not rising fast enough for the middle class.  This is another of the DECEPTIONS of the illegal immigration/open borders advocates.  A MAJOR factor keeping down wages is illegal immigration.  Can you imagine how much it will keep down wages to have an open borders policy like that advocated by Colmes?   We are already being flooded by people wanting to work in the U.S.  The more we give amnesty, and open our borders, the more this will happen. 

WHY don't leftists like Colmes (not to mention the AFT-CIO) not CARE that they are betraying American workers?  It is a matter of POWER.  Colmes wants leftist POWER for his agenda.  That is an agenda where the government runs everything, and takes from the rich (never mind that eventually you kill the "goose that laid the golden eggs").  The Afl-Cio wants MEMBERS, and its own leftist agenda to be advanced.  Thus, these kind of leftists WANT dependent people in this country ready to vote Democratic.  That is why they are willing to betray American workers.

Now I have said before that Alan Colmes obviously regards it as his JOB to take the "leftist talking point" positon on almost EVERY issue.   However, his statements on "open borders" are so outrageous as to indicate another possibiity.  Sure, Colmes is DECEPTIVE in his arguments, as are all illegal immigration proponents.  However, Colmes is so OBVIOUS that he goes beyond merely the deceptive leftist talking points.  This leaves open the POSSIBILITY that Colmes parrots leftist talking points because he is INCAPABLE of really thinking on his own.  In other words, I think I have to face the possibility that Alan Colmes is just stupid, rather than a political hack deliberately regurgitating leftist talking points for political/career reasons.  He may be doing it because it is all he knows how to do. Anyone who talks the way Colmes does about open borders should never even try to think on his own.  Regurgitating what other leftists are saying is by far his best option.

I will never find out for sure if Colmes is just a mind numbed, leftist robot deliberately spouting leftist political talking points, or a stupid man whose empty mind is being filled with what he believes are brilliant thoughts by the leftists he listens to.  That is because I am changing the station on my bedroorm radio to which I have been going to bed and waking up.  This has the added advantage of getting rid of Doug Stephan in the morning.

I can prove it.   The Bush Administration proposed to put into effect regulations which would STOP the fraudulent use of social security numbers. 

Global Warming: NO U.S. Evidence

It has been a COOL to average winter in the U.S., as a snowstorm rages in the Northeas (latest in a number of winter storms this winter).  Thus, the U.S. data continues to provide NO support for the idea that there is a "global warming" "crisis"--much less that it is man-made.

A COOL winter in 2007 (U.S.).  A COOL winter in 2008.  An AVERAGE overall termperature year (U.S.) in 2007 (same for 2008?).  NO consistent warming TREND for the U.S. since 1880 or so (see chart in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear").  No siginificant rise in that mythical "temperature of the earth" since 2001).  1936 remains the WARMEST year in the U.S  since the 19th Century (2006 was close, but merely emphasizes NO TREND, as termperature levels in the U.S. went up and down--returning in 2006 to the levels of 1936, but then backing off again in 2007).

All of this merely emphasizes how bad "global warmng" propaganda is.  NO, it is NOT me who is "politicizing" the weather.  It is the "global warming" fanatics who have tried to politicize normal weather variations.  I merely try to point it out during times when the data CONTRADICTS the whole idea of significant MAN-NADE warming linked to greenhouse gases. 

For example, do you see PRESENT stories on the North Pole ice cap?  There were strories this summer, however, about how it had shrunk by an area twice the size of France.  "Global warming" people SELECtiveLY present their propaganda, and only data that fits their position--wanting to POLITICIZE the weather when THEY WANT TO.  I refuse to let them get away with it.

By the way, the present winter storm itself is just that-- a winter storm. It is a pretty normal winter storm in a pretty normal winter (with the usual variations--it is almost 70 degrees inn El Paso, where I am writing this). It has nothing really to do with "global warming", except that these variations in the weather ARE normal. Hot days, weeks, months, or even years do NOT change that, especially when you note that there is no CONSISTENT TREND, and when you note that the "global warming" people are not successfully able to predict ANY of it.

Continuing my fairly regular practice of importing representative comments from elsewhere (usually AOL), here is a comment on the above by a leftist "global warming" fanatic, and my response:

"Science is science and no matter how deep in the sand (or any where else) you choose to stick your heads...one snow storm does NOT INDICATE the ABSENCE of GLOBAL WARMING!!!! It also really does not matter at all if you believe it or not."

Neither do some warm days, weeks, months or years indicate that there is a man-made "warming" crisis It does not matter whether you believe THAT or not. "Global earming" is NOT "science". I put it in quotes because the "science" part of it is SMALL--a vague concept rather than a full blown THEORY of CLIMATE (which would have to be able to PREDICT climate). I put "global warming" in quotes because I am referring to the POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS movement, rather than the much more modest real science involved in evaluating climatic trends. The data, and actual science, do not support the INFLATED scare claims of "global warming" fanatics.

Editor's note:  You will note that "global warming" religious fanatics will usually NOT debate the issue.  That is because their high priest, Al Gore (and others directing the propaganda campaign) have decreed:  the issue is SETTTLED.  The whole idea is to avoid debate by simply asserting over and over that there is NO ISSUE--that "science" has settled the matter.  How could that possibly be when "science" has not successfully PREDICTED any specific climate--even a year in advance?  There is actually no doubt that the "issue" is NOT settled.  How much is the earth warming, and how much of that is due to man?  HOW MUCH will sea levels rise?  WILL reduction of greenhouse has emissions really stop "warming"?  CAN we even stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions without dooming the earth's population to poverty?  The VAGUE CONCEPT that the earth is "warming" settles NOTHING.  The devil is in the details.   HOW MUCH is the earth warming?  Will it KEEP warming?  Can we do anything reasonable about it?  These questioins cannot possibly be settled, because "global warming" theory has no solid answers to them--at least none confirmed by correct PREDICTIONS.