Chicago or Iraq: Which Is the WORSE War Zone

Predictably, the tragic news that 47 Americans have died in Iraq in April, which is the most in 6 months,  is the BIG NEWS today for the despicable Associated Press.  The despicable AP, of course, has routinely ignored GOOD news out of IRaq.  This number is still considerably lower than before the successful troop surge in IRaq, even though it certainly is not good news. 

What other war zones have we heard about lately?  Well, there is Afghanistan, of course, where the taliban is attempting to escalate the violence.  But there is somewhere else................  Oh yeah.  CHICAGO.  In fact, just in the last day I have heard Chicago referred to as a war zone.

The question is:  Did more Americans die violently (not even counting traffic accidnets, or other violent deaths, but only murders) in Iraq in April or in CHICAGO (Obam'a s home city, where he has obviously put in practice his preaching of brotherhood and unity). 

Three Americans evidently (and sadly) died violently in Iraq yesterday.  But, then again, at least three people were murdered in Chicago, as well (three bodies being found dead on the streets, and I think that is even apart from ordinary, domestic murders or bar fights, as war between "gang bangers" continues on the streets of Chicago).

I am still waiting for Obama, and other leftists, to demand a "timetable" for our withdrawal from CHICAGO (where the police are now insisting upon carrying automatic weapons--can armored vehicles and full body armor be far behind, as I am sure they are alreday using bullet proof vests).

 

Global Warming: The Scam Explained, Part III

See yesterday's entries for parts I and II.

When I left off, I was explaining how environmentalists had pretty much failed to make a leftist issue out of man's effect on climate during the global COOLING years before 1970 (the end of a 30 year cooling period from approximately 1940 to 1970).

However, in the years after 1970, leftist envrionmentalists began to see the POLITICAL potential in the newly developing hypothesis of greenhouse gas emissions creating global WARMING.  Now this idea could hardly gain any traction while the Earth was COOLING (althong some people were actually bringing up the warming effect of greenhouse gases even as most people were still talking about global cooling--see the entry in the archives about the poor guy in Alaska who was attacked for questioning whether the Earth could really cool that much, when we were putting more greenhaouse gases into the atmosphere, and then was attacked for questioning--now--whether global warming is being overhyped;  talk about not being able to win!!!).

Now this vague concept of greenhouse gases causing material warming of the Earth's atmosphere has a lot of problems.  First, there is NO mathematical theory as to exactly how this occurs, as there is with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and with quantum mechanics.  The very thing that makes this concept of "global warming" possible to argue, which is that there is NO real "theory" of atmospheric physics that purports to really explain, in detail, how our atmosphere and climate works, means that there was NO "predictive", comprehensive, mathematically convincing, "theory" of "global warming"  You just had the vague concept that greenhouse gases have a warming effect (as does warming your house in the winter, or merely existing as your body puts out heat--see previous parts).

There was still the problem of explaining how this warming effect was any more significant, in comparison with the SUN, than the obviously insignificant warming effect of heat directly prodcued every time we use electricity (light bulbs, and electric or electronic devices are WARM, but put out little heat in comparison with the SUN).  There was also still the problem of explaining the COOLING from 1940 to 1970, when greenhouses gas emissions were clearly rising.  Obviously there is something wrong with the idea that greenhouse gas emissions automatically mean a steadily increasing temperature.

Then a funny thing happened.  The Earth DID "warm".  By 1980, a warming trend in the average temperatures of the Earth was pretty clear.  We still had no real explanation for the COOLING from 1940 to 1970, and the Earth has clearly warmed before without man being the cause, but still there was a warming trend.  Now since there were hardly any rigorous mathematical predictiions of how much the Earth was supposed to warm, with greenhouse gases, or any rigorous mathematical theories as to the relative effects of the SUN, greenhouse gases, and other factors on temperature and climate, this was hardly a true confiramtion of the "predictions" of "global warming" "theory".  It was, however, certainlyl worth scientific investigation.

In the ordinary process of the scientific method, scientists would have expanded the vague hypothesis of "global warming" into more rigorous theories, with more exact predictions, and then TESTED the predictions of those theories (skpetically).   At the normal pace of "science", that process would have just been substantially BEGUN by now.  After all, there was NO evidence for "flobal warming" before 1970, as the world had been COOLING, and a few years of a warming trend hardly proved anything.  But the whole, normal progress of the scientific method was short circuited.

By 1980, and certainly by 1990, environmentalists were already DEMANDING that "global warmng" be accepted as a FACT.   By 2000, of course, these demands were becoming almost hysterical, and have been escalating since then.  This has nothing to do wtih the ordinary progress of the scientific method, and everything to do with POLITICAL ORTHODOXY. 

As Michael Crichton has pointed out in his Appendix to "State of Fear", scientific careers suddenly became dependent on accepting "global warming" as true.  It becamse easy to get grants for research to SUPPORT "global warming".  If you came out against "global warming", your career suddenly stalled, and grants became hard to get.  This was especially true at our increasingly leftist universities, where most basic scientific research is done.  See yesterday's entry as to the "PUNISHMENT" Colorado State University is imposing on hurricane forecaster William Gray for his heresy on (criticism of) "global warming". 

Let us be frank here.  Scientists are human beings.  See Watson and Crick's book on the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.   The "scientific method" presumes skeptical scientists continually testing theories.  In actual practice, scientists inevitably have a vested interest in their own theories, which is why theories are not accepted (in the usual course of how "science" is supposed to work) until INDEPENDENTLY verified by the work of other scientists without a vested interest in the result.  Here, almost AlL scientists had a vested interest in the results on "global warming".  Their careers depened on it.  Even if their "science" was performed rigorously, they hedged the CONCLSIONS/summaries to present them in the most favorable light possible for the "global warmng" orthodoxy.

Yes, you couls say that scientists sold their souls, or you could say that they sold out for 30 pieces of silver.  Oh, I admit that is too harsh.  Scientists, as I said, are human beings.  The leftist environmentalists have been able to put EXTREME pressure on scientists.  Further, there is no doubt that many scientists themselves are emotionally invested in "global warming".  What you have ended up with is a total collapse of the scientific method, as scientists (especially as their work was publicized) did everything they could to contribute to the PROGAGANDA of "global warmng".  Gone was the skeptical ideal of the scientific method, where the idea is to CHALLENGE theories to see if they really are valid.

"Glboal warming" was supposed to be too "important" for skepticism.  What if the evironmentalists were right (the standard FEAR card that environmentalists have tried to play on everything from oil drilling to nuclear power for about 50 years).  The WORLD IS AT STAKE.  The end justifies the means.  Who cares if the scientific method is fudged., or short circuited.  As Al Gore said, this is a MORAL and SPIRITUAL issue--not just a scientific one. 

For those who wonder why I don't accept the "science" of "global warming", you only have to read the previous paragraph again. It is Lysenkoism all over again.  "Science" is being controlled by POLITICAL orthodoxy.  How can you believe "science" produced like that---especially when most of it makes little sense.  This is besides the fact the most "global warming" propaganda goes WAY beyond what "science" there is.

For example, there remains NO "science" connecting "gobal warming" with severe storms, or any particular weather events.  In fact, despite the deliberately POLITICAL change from "global warmng' to the ridiculous "climate change", there is NO comprehensive "theory" of climate.  We still have no convincing mathematical model of how our atmosphere works.  We STILL cannot accurately predict the climate OR temperature of NEXT MONTH, or NEXT YEAR, and yet "global warming" fanatics insist that they can predict the next 100 years.  This is NOT "science". 

How does "global warmng" arrive at its predictions?  We still have NO mathematical model that accurately predicts the energy we receive from the SUN.  We still have no mathematical model showing how clouds and precipitation affect climate and temperature.  We still have no mathematicl model as to the amount of reflecting particles in the atmosphere, or of expected volcanic activity (where ONE Krakatoa could completely destroy "global warmng" predictions, which have proven WRONG anyway).   So HOW does "global warmng" predict things?

Well, it doesn't (successfully).  But the way it TIRES to predict whatever vague things it tries to predict tells you how unscientific the whole thing really is.  What we really have are COMPUTER MODELS.  Those models essentially assume that things like the energy from the sun are CONSTANTS (don't vary, which is absolutely untrue).  In other words, the only significant vairable on the models is the amount of greenhouse gases.  Then it is ASSUMED that the recent warming of the Earth (1970 to 1998) will continue at the same relationship to the further increase in greenhouse gases as it did during that period of demonstrated warming.  In other words, the ASSUMPTIONS determine the resutlf os the models, which basically (with some bells and whistles) do nothing more than assune that the "warming" will continue at the same rate into the future as it has for the period 1970 to 1998 (taking into account an INCREASED rate becaus of an increase in the rate we are emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Garbage in, garbage out.  There is NO "comprehensive", mathematical theory of atmospheric physics behind this.  It is basically nothing more that assuming that the trends of the one 30 year period (ignoring the previous 30 year period) will continue into the future (adding things like sea level rises which have NOT been shown to have yet occurred).  A sixth graderr could do the "math".  Special Relativity, or quantum mechanics, it ain't.

And it has ENDED.  This idea of a defined trend of "global warming" correlating to world temperature rises has been proven FALSE. 

Remember those satellite measurements of that myhtical "temperature" of the Earth (there were, of course, no satellite mesurements for comparison for, say, 1936).  Well, 1998 was the WARMEST year.  We have COOLED since 1998.  Plus, there has been a total plateau in world temperatures since about 2002.  We are NO LONGER WARMING (whether caused by man or not--a fact which indicates the prior warming was NOT caused by man, as greenhouse gases have continued to increase).  U.N. climate people have already predicted that 2008 will be COOLER than 2007, as far as world temperatures are concerned--allegedly because of cooler currents in the Pacific ocean.  NASA has released data from 3,000 ocean robots indicating that the temperature of the world's oceans has not risen in FOUR YEARS. 

Did "global warming" predict any of this?  Of course not.

So where are the headlines screaming that "global warming" has been DISCREDITED?  Oh, there have been drips and dibbles of this news (see this blog).  But the "global warming" propaganda continues as if "global warming" still had a claim to being BEYOND ARGUMENT>

This is a total breakdown of the skeptical, scientific method.  Scientiests should be falling all over themselves to develop NEW theories, and test them, as to the fact that the warming of the Earth appears to have STOPPED.  Maybe somre are, but don't hold your breath.  The mere mention by a scientist (see William Gray) of skepticism on "global warmng" puts his or her career at risk.

Yes, all three Presidential candidates (those left) have bought into this "global warming" scam, to the point of advocating policies that will likely RUIN our presently struggling economy, as we crucify our economy on a cross of "global warming" (apologies to William Jennings Bryan).

Thee was more news today about a spokesmand for onte of those "institutes" recommending thatwe STOP promoting the use of food based biofuels (which arose out of the scam of "global warmign"), because we are taking the food out of the mouths of ONE BILLION PEOPLE.

Sometimes, leftist environmentalists ask:  "What harm can it do to protect the environment, even if it turns out that 'global warming' is a scam" (my word here, obviously).  THATT is the harm it can do.  It can RUIN our economy, and our standard of living.  It can result in the STARVATION of a billion people or more.  And that is just the beginning.  

It can destroy the rainforests (biofuels again).  It can introduce more mercury into our water (compact florescent bulbs, which Congress is virtually forcing us to use by 2012).  It can raise the COST of almost everything. 

I am confident that human beings, and the Earth, can survive increases in greenhouse gases.  I am not so confident that we can survive ENVIRONMENTALISTS. 

As I said at the beginning, political orthodoxy is the antithesis of the scientific method (which is the true meaning of "science").  It is because we have abandoned "science" (the skepticism of the scienitific method that is at the core of "science") that we have reached this point.  As Shakespeare (I believe) said:  "The fault in not in the stars, but in ourselves."

Or maybe Pogo put it better:  "We have met the enemy, and it is us"  Leftist environmentalists would not be able to pervert science this way, nor would the mainstream media be able to get away with propaganda, unless we let them. 

Slavery, Leftists, and the Holocaust

Do you believe that the hate filled insanity of Reverend Wright is an isolated thing, consider not only the number of defenders he has, but comments on AOL like that set forth below (continuing my importaiton of AOL comments under that story of Nazi war crimnals--see previous two entries):

"Try addressing SLAVERY every now and then.
I am sick of hearing about HOLOCAUST, a crime commited by ONE Man's Madness.
SLAVERY was commited by a whole RACE of People.
No appologies, the Hatred continues today, the oppression continues today.
F*UCK the HOLOCAUST, let's talk about SLAVERY, You IDIOTS."

What can you say about the above attempt to outdo Reverend Wright in irrational hate speech?

First, RACES do NOT engage in slavery.  Individuals--you could perhaps extend it to governments, tribes, and other groups of individuals--engage in slavery.  BLACKS in AFrica engaged in slavery (often selling slaves to European slave traders).  EVERY American who ever owned slaves (legally, anyway) has been DEAD for almost 150 years.  In fact, many WHITE Americans DIED to abolish slavery in the Civil War.  Should THEIR descendants "apologize" for slavery?  The "apology" for the evil mistake of slavery was written in blood, in the Civil War, and embodied in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The idea that RACES are repsonsible for what individuals of their race do is, of course, RACISM.  The dirty little secret is that there are few "pure" white people, or "pure" balck people.  Most Americans are MONGRELS, where one set of our ancestors may have oppressed another set (by family history, for example, I am 1/8 Cherokee Indian, or something like that). 

Racial hatred just gets you nowhere--especially racial hatred for sins of the past, when the people committing the sins are DEAD.  Now we should not forget the sins of the past (including the Holocaust), or condone them in today.  But this idea of a racial vendetta (a racial "blood feud"--the bllod is ALL red, in air) until the end of time is a truly evil thing. 

To encourage this kind of racial hatred, and the idea that you can hold "white" people today accountable for the sins of their, or  OTHER "white" persons', ancestors does African-Americans no favor.   

Nazis and the Extreme Leftist View of America

If you want to see the loons come out (both leftist loons and the anti-semite loons), you only have to look at the comments under the AOL/AP story referenced in my previoous entry.  I am going to try to give you a flavor of some of it here (in quotes, with my reply below). 

"Evil should be fought everywhere! The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens of South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians and majority of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Before being killed some of the victims were sexually molested, beaten, tortured, or maimed. Some of the dead bodies were also mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of My Lai and My Khe of Son village during the Vietnam War. The U.S. soldiers, one platoon of which was led by Second Lieutenant William Calley, went in shooting at "suspected enemy position". After the first civilians were killed and wounded by the indiscriminate fire, the soldiers soon began attacking anything that moved, humans and animals alike, with firearms, grenades and bayonets. William Calley is now living a comfortable and quiet life in the US, he was considered by many here in the USA fo being a "WAR HERO"! JUSTICE for who!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_ma"

William Calley was CHARGED and TRIED for his alleged (pretty much proven) crimes at My Lai.  Soldiers snap in war.  Some did in World War II (that is, some on our side).

All you can do is hold them accountable, to the extent possible.  This is entirely different from the systemic EVIL of Nazi Germany, or of today's al-Qaida, Iran, etc. 

If you can't see the difference (as Reverend Wright, for example, can't), then I am sorry for you.

Nazi War Criminals

Yes, one of the major, featured AOL/AP stories today is the list of still wanted Nazi war criminals (headline:  "Doctor Heads List of Nazi War Crininals", with a PICTURE of the "doctor" in the story).  Does there come a point where this is just not worthy of being a major story, even as we recognize that there is no "statute of limitations" on crimes of this magnitude?

While I have no problem with "tracking down" Nazi war ciminals, even in advanced old age, time is passing this story by.  In other words, these groups (who have often done good work in never letting these Nazi monsters sleep well at night), are going to have to find something else to do.

It is simple arithmatic.  World War II ended in 1945.   That is now 63 years ago.  Even Nazi war criminals who were only 20 are now 83 years old (or dead).

There comes a point at which you have to face reality.  We are rapidly reaching that point on Nazi war criminals. 

I do hope that those few still left alive never had a moment's true peace since 1945.

I fully realize that some Jewish groups, although they surely would like to see these Nazis brought to justice, use this kind of pubicity as a POLTICAL tool to keep the Holocaust alive in the minds of people today.  While that is a worthy goal, I really think that they are going to have to figure out another way of doing it.  At some point, they just look a little desperate, and a tad ridiculous.

Recession?

 

"The bruised economy limped through the first quarter of this year at only 0.6 percent as housing and credit problems forced people and businesses alike to hunker down."

Note the almost laughable "doom and gloom" by the despicable Associated Press, and AOL, in today's "lead" paragraph on the news that the economy GREW in the first quarter.  The headline/lead COULD have been:  "U.S. Not in a Recession".  Instead, you get things like "bruised economy", "limped", and "hunker down".  While the economy is hardly in good shape, it is actually amazing to have teh housing bubble burst as badly as it have, with record after record being set on diesel and gasoline prices, and still have the economy doing this well.

Problemm for the media, leftists, and Democrats (that unholy trinity who are One) here:  BY DEFINITION, you can't have a RECESSION if the economy grows at all.  In fact, a recession requires TWO consecutive quarters of CONTRACTION.  GROWTH in the first quarter almost guarantees that we are NOT in a recession, and further that we will NOT be in a recession this year--although it is an absolute certainty that economic cylces wll produce recessions in the future, even if we elect nothing but Democrats.

Now this matters only if you are desparate to use the "R" word, like the media, leftists and Democrats (of the political kind). 

You can see the archives of this blog for a CORRECT analysis of this situation (entry entitled "Recession and Safety", among others). 

Does it really matter whether the economy grows by .6% or falls by .2 percent?  Of course it doesn't (much).  We ARE in an economic slowdown (which, like recessions, inevitably happens from time to time).  Whether that slowdown ended up as a MILD recession, or merely a pause in growth, is IRRELEVANT.  In either event, the economy is NOT THAT BAD, and also NOT THAT GOOD.  What matters is not to panic and make it much worse.

The economy is already primed to come out of this slowdown in the last half of this year.  The "stimulus" checks (whether a good or bad idea) are about to begin being received.  The Fed is doing its best to help.  The challenge is for the politicians not to irrevocably HURT the future of the economy, n an election year, before it becomes bovious that the economy will recover without any further action from them.  This is actually a pretty big challenge, and this problem of people being conditioned to look to the Federal Government for an IMMEDIATE fix to all problems is reaching the critical stage. 

Now a continuing surge in oil (gasoline and diesel) prices could be about the ony thing to derail the economy's resumption of growth.  That is why I favor McCain's two good ideas for this summer:  a moratorim on Federal fuel taxes and a moratorium on purchasing more oil for the strategic oil reserve (it being absolute insanity to continue purchases at these astronomical prices).

That does not change the fact that economic cycles occur, and that even recessions (of a mild kind) are necessary for the long term health of the economy (preventing the periodic excesses, and "irrational exuberance", from getting out of control). If we develop the idea that the Federal Government must PREVENT all cyclical, economic downturns, and PANIC at every sign of pubic concern about the economy, then we truly will be DOOMED--although the despicable Associated Press will never understand what happened.

 

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: How Obama Becomes President of the United States

This blog has consistently said that Barack Obama has been all about words--words which often condemn Obama frm his own mouth, when compared with his past words and actions.

It now appears that the Rverend Wright fiasco (a fiasco with roots 20 years in the past, and roots in the political ambition of Barack Obama--which appears to be why he associated himself with Reverend Wright in the first place) has destroyed Barack Obama's chances to be PResident of the United States (at least for this election).  Now this underestimates McCain.   I once erred by declaring McCain politically dead (along with everyone else), but I have absolutely no doubt about McCain's ability to snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory.  Nevertheless, if Obama forces himself through as the Democratic nominee, he has to be regarded as a disntinct underdog against McCain.

I give this next advice hesitantly, because I have no desire to ever see Barack Obama President of the United States.  However, I am here to give you insightful analysis, and I feel an obligation t be hones.  Plus, I don't think that Clinton and Obama will listen to me.  But there IS a way for Barack Obama to rehabilitate himself--make himself a hero.  Sure, it is risky, but brilliant.

Obama has advertised himself, without any record to back him up, to be a "uniter" instead of a "divider."  What if he were to make the ultimate sacrifice, while he is AHEAND in the delegate race to be nominated as the Democratic candidate for President.

All Obama has to do is say something like this (AFTER making a deal with Hillary Clinton):  "I have said that I want to get beoyond "politics as usual", and to unite us rather than divide us.  I think I can do this.  However, there has been no doubt that this extended Democratic nominatiion process has tended toward being divisive.  Further, Reverend WRight has proved to be more divisive than I ever dreamed was possible.  My relative lack of experience and record, although I am proud of both, has cast some doubt on whether I can really do what I say I can do.  I have decided to back up my words with action--to show that it can be done.  I have gone to Hillary Clinton and offered to throw my support to her for the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States, provided she supports me for the nomination for Vice President.  Although I think I am still the favorite to win the Presidential nod. I have taken this action to show that I am willng to ACT to unite people behind what is important for our country and my Party."

"I do not take this action likely.  Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are very capable and talented people.  They can reassure people with their experience.  At the same time, I think that I can bring enthusiasm to the White House, and be an agent for real change within a Clinton Presidency.  Hillary Clinton has promised me a real role in her Adminstration, and I believe her.   I have no doubt of her ability to be a great President--especially with the partnership for change that I expect us to form as President and Vice President."

I do not take this action lightly  I know that it will disappoint manyu of my supporters.  However, I believe that some dramatic action was necessary to SHOW that I mean what I say about uniting people.  This job will provide me the further opportunity to show people that I can be the uniter, and advocate for change, that I say I will be.   It will remove any questions about my own experience.  Therefore, I feel that my supporters will gget the best of all worlds.  They will be able to vote for me for Vice President, where I can do almost as much, in conjunction with Senator Clinton, as I could do as President.  In addition, my supporters will probably get another chance to voter for me as President."

I hope that this sacrifice, for the moment, of my own ambitions shows that we CAN have change in this country, and that it is possible to unite people with dramatic action.  I look forward to your vote for a great Democratic ticket."

The hero worship after an Obama speech (surely better than my quick draft) such as the above would be sickening.  The mere thought almost causes me to throw up. 

Look, however, at how EFFECTIVE it would be.  They might even nominate Obama for PRESIDENT by acclamation, and disregard the deal.  At the very least, Obama wil become THE hero of the Democratic Party.  Wright will be pretty much forgotten.

I really hate to think that someone may pay attention to the above.  My expectation is that no one like Obama quits when he is on the very verge of being nominated to be President of the United States.  It really would be unique for a politician to make this kind of gesture.  After all, someting might happen to keep Obama from ever getting the chance again. 

Still, the gesture would be so powerful that I truly hope no one pays attention to this entry.   I would never live it down if I were the one responsible for Barack Obama eventually becoming President of the United States (or, frankly, even Vice President).

Obama: Condemning Jeremiah Wright, Wright's Defenders, and Obama Himslef

See the previous entry for the verbose version of today's final condemnatioin by Barack Obama of his former spritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright.   Here is a more succinct version, which I posted under the AOL article on the subject:

Has not Obama just ENDORSED what I have been saying in my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative" (see the FOUR entries yesterday), about Reverend WRight:  that he is an anti-American, racist hate monger?  Of course he has (not that I have been the only person saying it).

Has not Obama just CONDEMNED those leftists who have been defending the statements of Reverned Wright (for example, Bill Moyers of PBS, and all of those people on CNN and MSNBC)?  Of course he has.

Finally, has Obama not just condemned HIMSELF, for supporting this anti-American hate monger for 20 years (OR for not even realizing what Wright obviously was)?  Of course he has.

Barack Obama: Condemning Jeremiah Wright (and Obama Hiself, by Implicaton)

I break into my series on the eviolustion of "global warming" for "breaking news". 

Yes, Barack Obama has ENDORSED this blog's view of Jeremiah Wright (although I am sure that was not his main motive).  Throwing Reverend Wright under the bus does not even come close to describing what Obama said today. 

Obama has now totally rejected Reverend Wright--totally rejecting the "world view" that Obama says he never really saw before (in 20 years!!!).  Obama said that the Reverend Wright he saw yesterday was not the same Reverend Wright that he saw 20 years ago.  In fact, he went so far as to say that Reverend Wright does not understand Obama (seemingly referring to the idea that Reverend Wright was suggesting that Obama had disassociated himself from Wright's views as a matter of political posturing), and that Obama is no longer sure that he ever understood Reverend Wright.

In short, Obama says that the view of Reverend Wright he has seen over the last day or so "appalls" him.  Obama specifically referred to Wright's repeated allegations that he sees no reason not to believe that the U.S. government would spread AIDS, because he thinks the U.S. govenment is capable of anythiing.  Now many leftists have said that about the BUSH ADMINSTRATION.  Wright, however, made it clear that he was referring to the United States under EVERY ADMINISTRATION--Wright again making it crystal clear that he considers the United States of America as the major source of evil in the world.

Question:  Now that Oama has confirmed the obvious about Reverend Wright (he is an appalling, anti-American hate monger), what do leftists who defended Wright think of Obama?

Early indications are that the "Obama Syndrome" is in full operation (see yesterday's entries).  Early indications are that leftists are willing to get with the new Obama party line that he has NOW shown "courage" and "leadership" by denouncing Reverend Wright--the idea that present words trump 20 years of words and actions.

Could Obama have not known about Reverend Wright over 20 years?  Don't be ridiculous.  That alone, if true, would disqualify Obama from being President of the United States (no insight or judgment at all).  Obama specifically mentioned Farrakhan, and how Wright's praise of Farrakhan was indefnsible. 

Wright's church have Farrakhan an AWARD last year.  Wright took a trip with Farrakhan last year to Syria.  Wright as made it consistently clear that he regards Farrakhan as a great man.  How could it be possible that Obama did not know that?  It is not possible, just like it is nor reasonably possible for Obama not to have a good idea of the overall attitudes of Reverend Wright over these 20 years.

Yes, this blog has been confirmed to be correct (again) as to everything I have said about both Obama and Reverend Wright.  It has always been obvious that Reverned Wright is an anti-American hate monger who cannot be denfended.  And how can you defend Barack Obama ENDORSING that hate moner over 20 years--thereby exposting his daughters (and black children everywhere) to the type of hate speech to which Obama has said he does not want his daughters exposed (in connection with the MUCH less offensive comments of Don Imus).

Q.E.D.  Reverend Wright has destroyed the Presidential campaign, and maybe the Presidential aspirations, of Barack Obama.  Not content with that, Reverend Wright--yesterday--equeated himself (the arrogance of the man is breathtaking, and its reflection in Barack Obama is another disturbing thing) with the "black church" in America--suggesting that attacks on Jeremiah Wright are attacks on "the" "black church" in America.  Forget whether how disturbing this concept of "the" black church in America is, in the context of Reverned Wright's world view of separate worlds of black virtue and white oppressors.   Not content with destroying Barack Obama's political campaign, Reverend Wright has set himself the task of destroying black churches in America.  The guy is an arrogant, hate montering, loon. 

In fact (I can dream) has not Reverned Wright gone a long way toward destroying the lunatic leftists willing to defend him (this would include CNN and MSNBC, if they had not been destroyed long ago by their own lack of jouranistic integrity, not to mention no audience).  Has not Obama himself condemned those leftists will to buy into the anti-American hate speech of Reverend Wright?

All in all, this has been one of the more hopeful days I have had in recent years (as to the political situatin in this country).  In fact, it has been one of the more hopeful two months.  If only McCain were not out there still threatening to spoil it all!!!!! 

Global Warming: The Scam Elxplained. Part II

Part I ended with leftist environmentalists about to institute a POLITICAL/religious movement to promote a specific hypothesis that came about after the 30 year period of global COOLING that ended at about 1970--short circuiting the skeptical scienfic method in favor of making scieintific conclusions fit into the POLLITICAL model.

Dinosaurs once walked the Earth.  It was REALLY HOT.  Woolly mammoths once walked the Earth.  It was REALLY cold.  This all happened without man (discounting my exclusive excerpts from the Ice Age Times, and the campaign of Al Gorice against the promiscuous use of FIRE--Al Gorice obviously having been proven right by the melting of the frozen English Channel and the glaciers covering North America down to Florida). 

There is obviously a problem blaming man for the climate changes of the Earth.  The Earth has done much more significant things before--all by itself.

But leftist environmentalists began to get the idea, in the 1960's as the Earth appeared to be COOLING, that they could try to advance their agenda by talking about how man was going to ruin the climate of the Earth.  There was a problem, however, with "global cooling".  It was not obvious how man was causing the COOLING of the Earth.  Sure, you could claim that pollutant particles were COOLING the Earth, but the evidence was lacking.   That did not really stop leftists.  They tried to make a big deal about NUCLEAR WINTER--how a nuclear exchange would result in a WINTER that would end all life of Earth (or at least all human life).   The idea was that we HAD to have unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons, or whatever "disamament" deal we could get (no matter how stupid).  Ronald Reagan would expose this leftist ploy for the stupidity it was, as he DEFEATED the Soviet Union.  But the leftists IDEA of using "climate change" SCARE as a POLTICAL weapon was sown. 

There were scientists already suggesting, even as the climate appeared to COOL (1940-1970--see the charts in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"), that we were "spilling" greenhouse gases into the air at a rate that should eventually have a warming effect on the Earth. 

Now physics suggests that man has a warming effect on the Earth.  This takes us to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the lack of a perpetual motion machine.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggeststhat entropy (which can be thought as "heat", or even "chaos") always increases.  This is the idea that any macroscopic system spreads out "waster" heat--once known as the concept of an eventual "heat death" of the universe as entopy becomes evenly distributed througout the universe.  Now the Big Band theory, and the possibility of an osciallating universe, has tended to put this concept of an eventual "heat death" of the universe a little on hold.  I digress.

Abve absolute zero, production of ALL energy puts out heat.  This does not just include heating our homes in the winter, or our cars (although that DOES put out heat--DOES "warm the Earth")  In other words, there is NO perpetual motion machine that runs forever without adding additonal energy.  There is NO 100% efficient production of energy.  Our own bodies put out HEAT (as we also exhale the greenhouase gas, CO2).   When electricity runs along a wire, it always puts out HEAT.  Every electrical appliance puts out HEAT.  The laws of physics gruarantee it.  There is just no doubt that man's activities on Earth, as well as man's very existence on Earth, have a HEATING effect on the Earth.

Starting in about 1970, after about 30 years of COOLING, the Earth began to warm.  Now the concept of a single "temperature" of the Earth is probably erroneous, but average temperatires on the Earth clearly entered a warming trend (strangely enough, as Michael Crichton points out in "State of Fear", there never has been a CONSISTENT warming trend in the United States, even since 1970, as 1936 remains the warmest year in the U.S. since about 1880).  Temperature measurement has not remained consistent, and one study has shown that maybe HALF of the alleged "global warming" in the last century is because of the methods, and locations, of world temperature measurements.  Still, there was pretty convincing evidence that the Earth entered up a WARMING trend from about 1970 to about 1998--or about another 30 year period (about the same period of time as that covered by the previous COOLING trend. 

Leftist envrionmentalists had already started focusing on man's effect on the climate of teh Earth, as they tried to figure out how to USE global cooling politically.  Wasn't this easy?  I just told you that physics tells us that man's activities (at least some of them) have a warming effect on the Earth's atmosphere, asheat is produced.  Heat is an absolutely necessary byproduct of the production of energy.  In fact, we even exploded hydrogen bombs in open air tests (which everyone would have to agree was environmentally irresponsible--excusable at all only by a plea of necessity, which might be challenged).  That definitely prodcued HEAT (although in a time when the Earth was "cooling".

That last shows the problem with saying that man's direct production of heat is causing the Earth to warm at an alarming rate.  Physics tell us that such warming IS happening--without any doubt at all.  However, physics also tells us that such production of heat, as a byproduct on energy production (conversion from one form to another), is INSIGNIFICANT, in comparison with the SUN.  The FUSION, thermonuclear reactions occurring in the sun cause the SUN to transmit energy to the Earth that can be measured and/or calculated fairly closely (even though we CANNOT accurately predict the changes in the sun's output, as sunspots, solar flares and the like occur).  ALL of the energy produced by man is minuscule, in comparison.  

Leftists wanting to come up with a PLAUSIBLE way to blame man for the warming of the Earth just were not going to be able to sell the idea that the minor (in comparison with the sun) amount of heat directly produced by man could have a significant effect on the Earth's temperature.  Oh, there is no doubt that such production of heat "warms" the Earth.  It jusst does so in an intintesimal degree.

What to do;  what to do!.  Well, leftists had an answer.  Oh, there was that embarrassing 30 year COOLING period from 1940 to 1970.  And you still have the problme of changes in energy from the SUN dwaring all of the activities of man.  But atmospheric physics is not nearly as far advanced as energy physics.  In fact, it is still pretty much in its infancy.  Just like we KNOW that heat is produced by the production of energy, we KNOW that certain gases have a greenouse like effect (sun's rays are trapped as heat by these gases, more than the other gases of the atmosphere).

What we don't know is whether this has any more real quantitative effect than the minuscule HEAT produced directly by man.  This still might be a very minor effect, in compariston with the SUN (or thinngs like vulcanoes throwing particles into the upper atmosphere).  WHY was there that cooling period before 1970, anyway?

Did not matter to leftist environmentalists.  They were not interested in the SLOW process of the scientific method.  They saw a POTLICAL/RELIGIOUS opportunity to advance their agenda.  Atmospheric phsysics is not advanced enouch to say exactly how much effect greenhouse gases have on the "temperature" of the whole atmosphere.  It cannot be really DISPROVED (other than inferentially) that such greenhouse gases COULD warm the atmosphere significantly.  This was a Heaven sent opportunity for leftists trying to USE "science" (as Stalin tried to use Lysenkoism). 

End of part II.  Part III will follow as to what happened then, although you should know. 

 

Global Warming: The Scam Explained, Part I

I majored in physics at New Mexico State University.  I have considerable respect for "science".  That is one of the reasons I so despise the religion of "global warming".  In my opinion it has perverted "science",  for POLITICAL purposes, more than any recent scientific theory.  See my earlier entry on Lysenkoism, as Soviet agriculture was destroyed by a scientific theory pushed by Stalinist politics instead of the scientific method. 

"Global warming" has eerie similarities to Lysenkoism, even though it is not being imposed by a totalitarian regime.  It has been generated by a leftist ideology, basically communistic in nature.  Lysekoism KILLED millions of people (starvation), in combination with Stalin, in the Soviet Uniton.  "Globbal warming" is seeminglly in the process of doing the same thing, as the "biofuels" pushed originally by environmentalists take food out of the mouths of poor people around the world.

"Science" is NOT what "scientits" say.  In its purest form, it is a PROCESS--the scientific method.  That process is based on endless skepticism (where NOTHING is "beyond debate", as the Al Gore "global warming" fanatics have attempted to declare with "global warming".  Remember Newton's Laws of physics?  A "law", in physics, is a theory so well established that it is regarded as true (no longer a theory).   Well, it turned out that Newton's Laws were NOT the complete truth (although, in the calculus form that Newton presented them, they are true--just not the complete truth).  Enter Einstein's special theory of relativity, and you get atomic energy and a world where time if a variable thing.  And it is not just Einstein.   The very internet on which I am going to post this entry is the result of the non-Newtonian theory of quantum mechanics--based on a world the very opposite of Newton's apparently clockwork universe, where UNCERTAINTY is the "law", and cats can be neither dead nor alive.  Both Relativity and quantum physics came about by SKEPTIICISM as to whether Newtonian physics represented a full explanation of the universe. 

The scientific method is based on constant TESTS of theories--even theories which modify Laws, such as Newton's Laws.   You TEST theories by continued experiment, and PREDICTION.  If you cannot verify a theory by accurate and PRECISE prediction, then the theory is extremely suspect.   And this process never ends.  There is no such thing as TRUTH in science.  That is the realm of faith and philosophy.  In the scientific method, all you have is endless skepticism and TEST.  Oh, the idea of the scientific method is to constantly gain knowledge, and a closer approximation of the "truth", but the entire idea of the scientific method is the idea that we NEVER reach the full truth--that we must constantly TEST our "knowledge" to see where it is in error, or where we can add to it. 

"Global Warming has developed in the way of religion, rather than through the scientific method.  Sure, there was an hypothesis that gained traction in the 1980's and 1990's that increases in greenhouse gas emissions would cause the Earth to warm.  However, that vague hypothesis--never a full fledged theory of climate--was quickly taken over by a POLTICAL movement, as environmentalists (and anti-capitalist leftists of all kinds) seized upon the idea as the perfect vehicle to advance their political agenda (an agenda already there while "global cooling" was still the environmental mantra).

How and why did environmentalists/leftists seize on "global warming", after previously concentrating on "pollution" and even global cooling?   I think it is a story worth analyzing, whowing as it does a complete reversal and perversion of the scientific method.

Part II will follow

Global Warming Propaganda, Redux

"But Gray, a highly visible and sometimes acerbic skeptic of climate change, says that's a "flimsy excuse" for the real motivation — a desire to push him aside because of his global warming criticism.

Among other comments, Gray has said global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children."

The above is an excerpt from the full Houston Chronicle article, which is now linked on Drudge.  William Gray is the most famous hurricane forecaster in the world, who has been associated with Colorado State Univiersity.  This blog has noted before that Gray is no fan of "global warming" propaganda, and has especially ridiculed the idea that "global warming" has been connected to hurricane activity.  His recent forecasts have of hurricanes (last two years) have been none too good, but neither have the forecasts of the National Hurricane Center.  

This is just a further illustration (see tomorrow's planned entry for a fuller analysis) of how "global warming" has less to do with science than it does with POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. 

As I have noted recently, it is ironic (although predictable) that the hysteria of "global warming" propaganda has intensified as the EVIDENCE has weakened--present evidence indicating that what global warming there was has ENDED, as much as a decade ago.

This story, of course, indicates just how much pressure is on scientists to fall in with the "party line" on "global warming".   Michael Crichton noted the same thing in his novel with a bibliography and appendix;  "State of Fear".  This story is all about Colorado State University withdrawing support for William Gray, in a rather obvious and clumsly attempt to "punish" him from his departure from the "global warming" religious orthodoxy.

P.S. to blondepennie:  See, no mention of Barack Obama at all.  Of course, that has something to do with the fact that Obama and McCain have the SAME basic position on "global warming":  the leftist position that threatens to destroy our economy, and perhaps bring starvation to the world. 

Double sigh.

The Obama/Leftist Syndrome: Words Cure Everything

Now for leftists, and Barack Obama, words of conservatives, or Republicans, can NEVER be explained, or put in context.  Remember that unconstitutional, LETTER signed by 43 Democrat members of the U.S. Senate (I think including Obama--he certaily did not oppoase it) to Rush Limbaugh's supposed EMPLOYER asking that Limbaugh be "disciplined" for his "phony soldier" comment (a totally fraudulent "controversy", where Limbaugh really was taken totally " out of context").  See the previous entry comparing Reverend Wright and Don Imus (as to each of whom Obama, and leftists, have taken a totally opposite attitude). 

I saw a litte of the CNN coverage yesterday of Reverend Wright, as well as some of Wright's defenders on Fox.   What is their attitude?

Well, go back to Barack Obama.  Obama's attitude, supported by the leftists in the media and elsewhere, is that a good SPEECH can overcome anything--including a record totally at odds with the speech.  Thus, Obama's WORDS of "unity" can overcome his RECORD of supporting Reverend Wright's hate speech and separatist philosophy (by not only attending his church for 20 years, but supporting it with money). And Obama's WORDS (as to what he meant) can overcome the clear, elitist meaning of Obama's disgraceful comments in San Francisco.

Similarly, who out there would allow David Duke to overcome his past RECORD with shiny new words?  Well, CNN, and other leftists, were EAGER to do that with Reverend Wright.  As I state in the three earlier entries today, Reverend Wright's words were not, in fact, comforting.  They were disturbing.  But leftists were EAGER to accept them at face value, because leftists are perfectly willing to accept that kind of racism (so long as it comes from one of the "good guys"). 

The point is:  It has been WEEKS, or even MONTHS, since Reverend Wright's hate philosophy first surfaced.  How can he possilby "cure" that with "out of context" ("out of contex", because specifically designed to repair his image) WORDS? 

This makes no sense at all, except to leftists.  But that is the point of "the Obama Syndrome."  Obama's entire campaign has been bassed on nothing but high sounding words, even if they contradict his record. 

I truly hope someone cannot be elected PResident this way.  Leftists obviously think that Orwell's Big Brother was right:  that mere words, repeated often enough, can substitute for reality.  It scares me that maybe they will be proven right.

I hope not, but that is where I am in a painful dileema.  I can't stand the idea of Barack Obama being President of the United States.  Neither can I stand the idea of John McCain being elected President of the United States.  However, one of them probably will be.

Sigh.

Reverend Wright and Don Imus: Hate Speech in Context

"The government invented the HIV viurs as a means of genocide against people of clor".

The government has given drugs to black men in order to incarcerate them."

The above quotes, of course, come from Revend Wright (paraphrases, but fair paraphrases using some of the exact words).   Then there is the WRITTEN eulogy, where Reverend Wright ethnically insulted ITALIANS (not Romans), and, in effect, blamed "white people" (Italians--that is, Romans) for the crucifixion of Christ.   If Reveredn Wright had limited himself to "Romans", it might almost be defensible.  As it was, it was an ethnic slur designed to fit into that "black liberation" world view that Jesus was "black", and one of the early black victims of white "Europeans".  See the previous two entries.

What is the present leftist mantra?  You know it.  You are hearing it all over CNN, and even put forth on Fox.  You have always heard it all over the hopeless MSNBC.  The mantra is that the infammatory quotes of Reverend Wright (not just the above, but several others) are taken "out of context".  However, what you NEVER hear is how statements like the above are explainable IN CONTEXT.  The idea is the Orwellian idea of the Big Lie:  If you say something often enough, eventually people will believe it is true.  There is NO "context" that can same statements like those above, and they are consistent with the world view of  Reverend Wright (see previous two entries). 

As is often the case, Barack Obama has convicted himself with his own words on this one (as have most of the left). 

Remember Don Imus?  In a what was meant to be a comedy riff (everyone agrees on that), Imus used the term "nappy haired 'ho's" in connection with the Rutgers basketball team.  Okay, it was not funny.  It was offensive.  But it was THREE WORDS ("out of context", and "playing over and over again in an endless loop" anyone?).

Now Don Imus has done a lot of good work in raising money for, and awareness of, SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), as well as children's cancer charities.  Imus has his own chairty ranch in New Mexico for afflicted children. 

There is just no comparison between Reverend Wright and Don Imus.  Imus was trying, unsuccessfully, to be FUNNY.   He was merely racially insensitive, crude and insulting.  Reverend Wright was SERIOUS--stating hate speech, which is also transparently FALSE, in a way that can only stir up hatred. 

When asked about Imus, Obama had no doubts.  His response as to whether Imus should be fired:  "I don't want my daguthers exposed to this sort of thing, and so there is no doubt what I would do if I were Imus' employer". 

Obama, of course, had no problem exposing his daughters to the much more virulent, hate speech of Reverend Wright.  Worse, he had no problem with the black lyouth of Chicago being exposed to this sort of thing, which may explain, in part, why there have been 331 "gang banger" type shootings in Chicago so far this year. 

Then there is Larry Summers, at Harvard.  He merely stated what amounted to a truism:  "Women think differently from men, and therefore we have to consider that some of the disparity in the number of women mathematicians, compared to men, may have more to do with that than with "sexism".  He was cricivied.  Yet, Reverend Wright has just finished a speech (the Detroit NAACP speech that I heard in its entirety) suggesting that African-Americans, AS A RACE, do not think "logically", like Europeans, because their brain is "different".  Does this mean that Wright is suggesting that we not bother to teach African-Amiricans mathematics, or the hard (logical) sciences?  And this was the SANITIZED Reverend Wright--the one I correctly predicted would eventually be trotted out once it was thought that he could be trusted to seem "non-threatening".

Could Don Imus get away with saying that he was taken "out of context".  Don't be silly.  Could Larry Summers get away with that, or even with the fact that he was saying little more lthan the exact TRUTH?  Nope.  Yet, the "crimes" of those two were minuscule, in coparison with the hate speech of Reverend WRight.

Of course I am saying that people using the "out of context" line are DISHONEST.  Now there may be a few leftists who have CRITICIZED the "gotcha" mentality of modern "political correctness", where isolated staements are used to destroy people--even when relatively minor (as Wrights' are not).  For example, if a leftist defended Dog, the bounty hunter, for his PRIVATE, racist remarks on the telephone to his child, then I might say that such a person might be regarded as honest in a defense of Reverend Wright (a defense that does not show that he was quoted "out of context", but only a;;eges  that the "sound bites" have to be considered based on the totality of what Wright has said, and the totality of the good things that he has done--a subtle REDEFINING of the phrase, "out of context").

Very few leftists exist willing to accept the "out of context", or "isolated", excuses for racist--or merely racially offensive--statements.  For all others, the "out of context" "excuse" is as DISHONEST as it gets.  It is so dishonest, in fact, that there is almost no pretense of intellectual consistency.  The whole idea seems to be the Big Lie concept:  that you can just repeat something so often, counting on mainstream media support, that you can drown out the contrary view.

Needless to say, this blog does not accept such dishonesty.  Note that I did NOT defend Don Imus for "out of context" statemtents.  I merely said, in this blog, that his OFFENSIVE statements were intended to be funny (unfunny as they were), and not enough to FIRE someone.  

Jeremiah Wright: Black Physics and Black English

As readers of this blog regularly would know, I graduated from New Mexico State University with a B.S. in physics (with high honors).  Despite the pretty good grades, I never thought I had a real talent for physics (although that, and other scientific subjects, still fascinate me--partially explaining why I have been a lifelong reader of science fiction).  I would go into the U.S. Army out of New Mexico State (in 1969), and from the U.S. Army directly into the University of Texas School of Law. 

I can assure you that there is no such thing as "black physics", or "black mathematics", or even "black psychology".  There is no "black biology" (although African-Americans--or some of them--obviously have some genetic susceptibility to certain diseases, like sickle cell anenmia, not generally shared by others).  There is no "black chemistry". 

That is one of the several really disturbing things about Reverend Wright's speech at the NAACP Detroit chapter.  See the previous entry, where I discuss sthe fundamentally racist idea that African-Americans are automatically "different" from "Europeans", and that such "difference" needs to be emphasized/recognized in education.   The idea of a separate language known as "Black English", fullly as valid as standard English, is one of the pernicious concepts that do nothing but threaten African-American education.  This does not refer to the study of how regional and cultural vairations of standard English develop.  It refers to the idea that African-American children need to be TAUGHT in "black English", or that they need to be taught that it is "just as good" as standard English.

I grew up (until about age 12) in a small Arkansas town in Arkansas hill coutrty (might even be called "hillbilly country) called Mt. Ida.  As I said early on in this blog, my grandmother (father's mother) raised NINE children (as a single mother a good part of the time), and my most vivid memory of her is her doing laundry (for a living) in large IRON POTS.  This wasn't even THAT far back (1950's).  Although most of her nine children were pretty successful (my father was a physician--GP--although his personal demons kept hiim from ever being really successful).  However, one of my uncles was a often a bottlegger on the run from the "revenoors".  As I have mentioned in this blog, Stephen Hunter libeled Mt. Ida in "Hot Springs" (Mt. Ida is 37miles from Hot Springs at one end of Lake Ouachita (Mt. Ida is at the other end--the huge, mainly man-made lake being "constructed" when I was a child).   The libel was that Mt. Ida had nothing but a saloon.  It was a DRY place--hence my uncle's "profession". 

I grew up saying "cain't" for can't (as a very yoiund child)    The people of Mt. Ida would have, and I am sure do, LAUGH at Reverend Wright for calling them "Europeans".  I think that hey would regard that, alone, as "hate speech"--much less the real hate speech theat Reverend Wright has spread. 

When I went to school, however, no one even thought of the idea of teaching me "hillbilly" English, or teaching me that I was not "deficient" for using words like "cain't" (I realize more than a mispronunciation than a real misspelling).  The benighted school, in a poor community, did not even teach "Southern" as a separate "language".  We were simply taught English (well, I might add--from grade school in Mt. Ida to high school in Silver City, New Mexico to college in Las Cruces, New Mexico, I would learn English well enough to get 785 out of 800 on the LSAT--standardized law school admisson test).

Sharyn McCrumb (author of some truly outstanding novels of the Appalacian South) has written of the "oral tradition" of those people, and of their cultural heritage.  Yet, you don't get the feeling that those people think that they are speaking a totally different language, or should be taught in a totally different language.  Again, the idea of being "European" would never occur to them.

Then there is Jeff Foxworthy.  He has made a career out of "redneck" humor.  He has put out something called the "Redneck Dictionary".  Do "rednecks" in the South (NASCAR people that elitist politicians labeled "undesirable" in Washington state) have a regional variation of English all their own?  Of course they do.  But, except for Jeff Foxworthy, no one ever thought to label the language as a distinctly different language from English.

On the border, people often speak a "corrupted" form of Spanish called "border Spanish".  Is that the languate taught in schools in Juarez, Mexico, or even El Paso (where I live).  Don't be silly.  Even Spanish speakers are taught "correct" Spanish in school. 

The idea that "black English" is some sort of special "language", different from English in ways that regional dialects and variations are not different, has pretty much been discredited (except for black nationalists like Reverend Wright).  In Boston, they may speak funny, but the schools teach the same English the schools teach everywhere.  Ditto for England.  They may talk funny, and have some different words and meanings, but the English taught is still basically the same as that used by Charles Dickens, and by Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes).  It is the same English taught in American schools--those that still even recognize Dickens.  There are considerable differences in "British" and "American" English, but the formally correct English language actually differs very little between the two contries.  You doubt this?  Consider that the Harry Potter books were written by an ENGLISH author. 

In other words, there is no reason to make a big point of "Black English" being a separate language.  It is not that black children should be looked down upon for not speaking the English of Charles Dickens, any more than I should have been looked down upon for speaking a form of "redneck" English.  And I really don't think they generally are looked down upon for that reason.  However, those who want to excuse AFrican-American children from learning "correct" English, which is necessary to communicate with other educated people, developed the concept of "Black English" to "explain"/excuse the failure of African-Americans in school and on standardized tests (not written in "Black English").   

Note that I have no problem with studying African-American cultural history (as people have studied the cultural, oral history of Sharynn McCrumb's Appalacia).  I don't even have a problem with linguists studying the different, regional and cultural variations of the English language, including African-American variations, and roots some of them may have in Africa.

What Reverend Wright, and those who think like him, are doing is very different from that, however.  They are trying to say that African-Americans should NOT have to meet the same standards as others, because their way is just as good ("different but not deficient").  That, of course, is a non-sequitur.  English words are often NOT spelled "phonetically".  You can argue that there are BETTER spellings of the words.  So what.  You still have to learn STANDARD English, whether you are in the hill country of Arkansas or the urban jungles of Chicago (admittedly a really dangerouos place these days, because of the failure of leftists and black leaders to instill real values in African-American children). 

Reverend Wright's defenders say that he is merely highlighting the way that schools are failing black students.  Not true.  Reverend Wright is trying to BLAME "European" education for not "understanding" African-American children. 

As I have noted repeatedly in this blog, the real failure has been leftist ideology that haws destroyed the black family.  This has nothing to do with "Africa".  It has much more to do with PRESENT black urban culture, and the way people like Reverend Wright have enc coouraged a "separatist", resentful point of view.  Leftist welfare policies, and leftist encouragement of the "new morality", have done more to destroy African-American families in this country than any other factor. 

As with "black physics", there is no such thing as "black values" and "white values" (as distinct from surface culture).  There are RIGHT values, and there are WRONG values.  This is a case where "different" IS "deficient", and it has been proven so.  Oh, "white values" have deteriorated as well, but "whites" could beter afford it.  African-Americans could not.

See Hollywood "black" movies from the 1930's to the early 1960's ("A Raison in the Sun" is one of the last of this type, and a very good one).  I am not talking about the Hollywood caricatures, where the characters DID speak a Hollywood version of "Black English".  I am talking about serious moview with all black casts, that you see from time to time on Turner Classic Movies.  The black characters speak perfectly good English, AND have the same family values as "white" families of the time.  Reverend Wright almost surely regards that as a "sell out" to "white values".  Certainly, urban black youths of today are being broought up to have contempt for the old "white middle class" values.  I question whether that comes from Africa.  It seems to me to come from the urban black culture of TODAY, fed by the "language" of hip-hop type music rather than "African" traditions. 

Spoken language is a living thing.  Even written language evolves over time (read Shakespeare).   So what.  Reverend Wright is still sending the wrong message.   It is a message of separatism and hate--despite his efforts to "clean it up" in light of the criticism.   

Jeremiah Wright: Racist

Jeremiah Wright is a racist.  Even in a speech deliberately designed to conceal that, it comes through loud and clear.

African-Americans have rhythm and are wired in their brains to think "creatively, and intuitively, rather than logically".  That is what Reverend Wright essentially said.  If a white person had said it, he would (somewhat accurately) be labeled a racist.  in fact, Larry Summers DID say something like that with regard to females--albeit with more excuse and in a much milder from, suggesting that the scienfific fact that women's brains ARE different (not really established for "Africans") MIGHT explain why there are fewer women mathematiicians.  Summers was, of course, crucified for saying what he did.  Leftists, meanwhile, are appauding Jeremiah Wright (exposing themselves as the racists they are).

200 years or so after the last Africans were imported as slaves, Wright (black nationalist that he is) continues to DEFINE African-Americans by their African heritage, and say that makes them DIFFERENT from "Eurpopeans".  Is that not a racist point of view?  Do not African-Americans have the same variations that other members of the species, homo sapiens, have?  Silly me.  I thought that was the non-racist view!

Jimmy Carter and the Associated Press: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate WINNERS

Yes, the spinning "Finger" (statuette of an INDEX finger) has stopped spinning for another week, as this blog reincarnates the old Laugh In award for conspicious stupidity (often beyond stupidity into the realm of evil) in the past week.  

Once again, the "Finger" as not stopped completely, pointing at a single target, but has ceased spinning, only to osciallate, undecided, between two worthy targets.  In fact, the "Finger" first seemed to oscillate among THREE worthy recipients, but adjustments were made to try to MAKE the "Finger" point at a singel winner.  The judges hae become concerned that the "Finger" needs to become mre decisive, rather than do this imitation of Hamlet every week.  Despite the adjustments, the "Finger" continued to osciallate between this week's two winners, unable to choose between them.  However, Planned Parenthood, worthy of the award though that evi organization is, managed to be eliminated by the final adjustments to the "Finger".   See the previous entry today as wo why the "Finger" kept TRYING to point at Planned Parenthood as a third co-winner. 

The pull of both actual co-qinners was too strong for the "Finger" to ignore.  It ended up osciallating frantically between them.

First is the Axxociated Press--another repeat winner of the coveted "Finger", and almost weekly nominee.  The bar keeps being raised, as each time there is a "winner" of the Finger, that winner receives a certain amount of immunity from the "Finger" pointing in that direction again.  But the despicable Associated Press keeps clearing the raised bar with eas.  This week, the Finger was unable to escapte the conclusvie, final proof that the Associated Press is a "news" organization totally without journalistic honor or integrity.

How many thousand good men and women joined the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines the previous year?  We are supposed to be increasing the number of men and women in the military, to reduce the pressure on those already serving their country, and to meet the increased challenges in the world (not just Iraq, although Iraq has obviously put some pressure our military resources).  From all indications, patriotic men and women have stepped up to the challenge, and joined themilitary (despite KNOWING that they may end up in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some similar war zone).   These men and women, many of whom surely had alternatives like Pat Tillman had (if maybe not quite so dramatic), are among the best America has to offer (not the stupid, brainwashed, hopeless people portrayed by Johh Kerry and the left--including, of course, the Associated Press). You doubt me on this (oh, you really are a FOOL this time)?

Consider the reaction of the Associated Press to the story of the thousands fo men and women who voluntarily joined the military last year (a reaction in the grand traditon of those stories about "veteran" suicides and combat veteran "mental health problems"). 

For the Associated Press (and the equally despicable AOL), the story was NOT the thousands of men and women who joined the military last year to serve their country.  In fact, you had to dig deeply into the AP story to even find how many people joined the military last year, and whether it was an increase from the previous year (if you could find that information at all).  For the Associated Press, the "news" was that the number of convicted felons "jumped" from 249 to 511 in U.S. Army recruits, and from 208 to 350 in U.S. Marine recruits, "because" of the pressure on the military to recruit new soldiers.  Then there was a reference to "some" (like maybe 3 or 4) of these being convicted of violent crimes like manslaughter (Ted Kennedy was convicted of this one--at least of involuntary manslaughter) or a sex crime (for which, of course, leftist judges out there are RELEASING people with minimal sentences, with no peep from "news' organizations without honor like the AP).  Oh, the AP did not, after the hysterical headline and lead, that there are 180,000 mean and women in the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines (all of whom the Associated Press was knowingly smearing with this article).

Nope. This is NOT about whether the AP should have reported this insignificant rise in convicted felons.  You can argue that it was worth reporting, in the body of a story about the real news.  But to report this as the "important" "news' in military enlistments last year is the act of a "news" organization totally without honor an integrity--a "news" organization for which agenda trumps "journalistic" "integrity" every time   There is just no doubt as to why the Finger came to rest on the Associated Press again this week, and no doubt as to why it kept osciallating back to one other.

Jimmy Carter has a distinguished career of stupidities worthy of the Finger stopping on him.  His whole Presidency, in fact, was worthy of the Finger.  Remember those helicopters breaking down in the desert, as Carter dithered over what to do about our embassy held hostage in Iran?   Then there was the more recent event where a majority of the staff of Carter's own Careter Center protested the ANTI-ISRAEL statements in Carter's recent book (Carter has long been anti-Israel, to the point of being suspected of anti-semitism--which has not stopped him from compounding his errors and supitidities).

Well, this past week Carter met with Hamas (an anti-Israel, terorist organization).  This visit had no possible benefit, and its only effect was to give further "street cred" to the terrorist organization (and for Carter to give a further poke in the eye to Israel).  The man (Carter) is a continuing menace.

You can see the earlier entries this week for further descriptions of the stupities of this week's winnes of the coveted Finger, and why the Finger stopped on these two winners in particular.  But on to thw award ceremony:

This is a vriutal ceremony, where you need to visualize Dick Martin presenting the statuette of the Finger directly into the camera in an aggressive, thrusting motion:    "Jimmy Carter and the Associated Press, this award is for YOU;  you DESERVE it".

So they do.

Planned Parenthood: Evil Organizatioin

Planned Parenthood recevies 300 million dollars a year from the Federal Government (from taxpayers).  That is not counting the taxpayer money it receives from state and local governments.  That means that the taxpayers are being made to support EVIL.

You doubt me (you fool you!!!).  This week's story (not an aberration, but the latest in a series of similar stories about Planned Parenthood) is about the GENOCIDAL tendencies of Planned Parenthood.  Yes, African-Americans were protesting the willingness of Planned Parenthood to TARGET abortions for minority women.

Has the Ku Klux Klan ever done any worse.  In fact, think of what would happen if a CONSERVATIVE CHURCH organization were caught doing this sort of thing.  It would be news for weeks.  There would be Congressional investigations.  There would be no chance of continued government funding.  But Planned Parenthood is a SACRED COW of the left, and the mainstream media.  Thus, there has been very little coverage, and very little apparent outrage (how would we know how much outrage, with a virtual "news" blackout).

What happened?  Some people RECOREDED phone calls to Planned Parenthood.  Those phones calls asked whether Planned Parenthood would accept donations TARGETED specifically for abortions on minority women.  The astounding, evil answer (at least from some Planned Parenthood personnel):  YES.  In fact, there appeared to be no qualms at all, in one of more of the recorded conversations.

This is just the latest scandal of this kind, that would have doomed any organization which was not a sacred cow of the left.  There was an undercover teenage girl in California who recorded conversations with Planned Parenthood personnel, and then was faced with a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT from Planned Parenthood for daring to do so (the girl did not get the usual media attention that such an attempted SUPPRESSION of information would cause as to a less favored organization).  I believe that those recorded conversations had to do with Planned Parenthood violating state law as to providing information on pregnancy of minors.  It is well known that Planned Parenthood fanatically resists informing both parents and the state about minors seeking abortions.  In fact, Planned Parenthood has been exposed repeatedly as VIOLATIOIN LAWS requiring the reporting of underage pregnancies, for the purpose of tracking down RAPISTS (statutory rape is RAPE--look at the evil polygamist sects, which are really amateurs at evil compared to Planned Parenthood).

It has been about 40 years since I made my first vow (both privately and publicly, in letters that were published) that I would never lend any support of any kind--financial, or by word or deed) to such an evil organzation  I can't tell you how much it disturbs me that I have been unable to keep this vow because of FORCED taxpayer support of this truly EVIL organization.

What is the invariable response of Planned Parenthood to exposure of their EVIL, and their lies?  It is ALWYS to say that only a small percentage of the activities of Planned Parenthood has to do with abortion (as, I guess, only a small percentage of the polygamist sect activities have to do with forcing young girls into sex and "marriage"). 

I actually support articiall birth control.  I am not Catholic.  I was raised Presbyterian, and have been agnostic since about the age of 12.   Doesn't matter. . I have been exposed to the true EVIL of Planned Parenthood for at least the last forty years.  There is no more evil organization on the face of the Earth.  They are fanatics.  They are perfectly capable of supporting genocide.  They have no respect for family or parents.  They have no respect for the truth.  Their consistent attitude is that the end justifies the menas.

They consistently downplay their role in abortion, when there has been no more FANATIC pro-abortion agency in the history of man.  They oppose ALL restrictions of abortions:  whether partial birth abortion or any other kind of abortion   They oppose ALL requirements as to disclosing information about minors, whether to parents or to the authrorities.  They PROMOTE the kind of thing that happened in Maine:  birth control infomation and produicts to ELEVEN YEAR OLDS (without parental permission or disclosure). 

My first encounters with Planned Parenthood lies came early, in the 1960's.  That was when Planned Parenthood first developed its technique of FANATIC promotion and advocacy of abortion, while posing as a "moderate" birth control agency when challenged.  Do you realize that there was a time (I was there) when the OFFICIAL Planned Parenthood position, and the "moderate" position, on abortion was that NO ONE favored "abortion on demand".  That "moderate" positon was that doctors had to be able to consider the health of the mother, and such things as defects in the feturs, but that EVERYONE realized that unrestricted abortion on demand was undesirable.  That, of course, was a deliberate LIE (the idea that Planned Parenthood did not favor unrestricted abortion). 

I could go on.  Trust me on this one.  It is an abomination that Planned Parenthood receives ANY taxpayer money   Everyone shoul recognize that supporting Planned Parenthood is supporting EVIL, fully as much as supporting a polygamist cult or supporting the Ku Klux Klan.   That the left, and the media, are so unwilling to criticize this truly evil organization is an indictment of THEM (the left and the media).

Global Warming: The Propaganda Never Ends

With the actual evidence in support of "global wraming" deterirating daily, the propaganda has become pathetic.  Today's propaganda story featured on AOL is about how additional marine mammals, besides the polar bear, are "threatened" by arctic "warming"-an article from one of these "ecological" "science" journals that is little more than a popaganda outlet itelef (despite the attempt to oscure this in the mainstream media propaganda article itself by saying that the "study" was "peer reviewed"--meaning "peer reviewed" by people committed to the "global warming" religion).  Note how the story assumes someting which is almost surely not true:  that polar bears are presently threatened by "global warming":  the photos of stranded polar bears on floating ice having been shown to be essentially a lie--resulting from a severe storm rather than "climate change" breaking up the ice.

The propaganda just never ends.  Forget that the polar bear thing has pretty much been exposed as a HOAX.  Forget that the most recent warming cycle in the arctic was indentified by NASA as being mainly caused by a natural, long term CYCLE in ocean CURRENTS. 

The key propaganda here is in the phrase "as the Earth warms".  The EVIDENCE is that the Earth has STOPPED warming (from any cause--natural or from man's activities).  The Earth has NOT "warmed" since 1998 (almost a decade now).  The U.N. climate agency has indicated that this year will be COOLER because of ocean currents (those pesky ocean currents again).  NASA meansurements from 3 THOUSAND robotic devices have shown that the Earth's oceans have NOT warmed in at least 4 years (the Earth absolutely cannot warm without the ocenas warming).   Some Canadian scientists are studying whether we are about to enter a COOLING phase of the Earth because of reduced activity in the SUN.

Have greenhouse gas emissions gone DOWN, or even stayed the same, over recent years?  Don't be silly.   Thus, the fact that "global warming" appears to have STOPPED totally DISCREDITS the whole "theory".

See the archives of this blog for the multiple entries supporting the facts referred to above, including recent stories noting the key point:  The global warming (there never has been a consistent U.S. warming) that began in 1970 (after abut 30 years of global COOLING) has ENDED, as of almost a decade ago.

Recession and Rationing: The Media Goes for the "R" words

Never doubt the agenda behind mainstream media stories these days.  Today's AP story is about a "recession" in individual states, even if it is not clear that here is a recession in the country as a whole (see this blog's prvious entry on how meaningless the "recession" term really is--as if it made any difference as to whether our economy SLIGHTLY contracted, or SLIGHTLY grew, or simply stayed about the same--the substance of the economic SLOWDOWN is abut hte same in all three scenarios).

This "news" story by the despicable Associated Press (a "news" organization without any journailistic honor) is actually funny.

Remember those stories this week about STORES (not the nation) "rationing" rice?  Well, the whole purpose of those stories was to use the word "rationaing" (absurdly meaningless in the context of individual stores or chains--not to mention that the main CAUSE of higher food prices is BIOFUELS--in other words, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, who also happen to be a major DRAG on our economy due to the burdens they are placing on that economy in the name of "global warming").

Well, the entire pupoe of this story about individual states being in a "recession" is that "R" word.  Yes, this whole stroy is crated around the word "recession"--a word totally unnecessary to the story.  If the AP can't get economists to declare the nation in a "recession", they can still shoehorn the word into a story on the economic difficulties in individual states. 

Yep:  a "news" organization without honor.  Okay.  You can say the same about the entrie mainstream "news" media.

John McCain: Pinhead

Yes, John McCain is clearly capable of being a pinhead (in the spirit of O'Reilly's "pinheads and patriots" section) on the same day he is a "patriot" (see earlier entry today).

As I have said before, the main reason I could never vote for McCain for any office is that he reserves his most enthusiastic, heartfelt, vicious criticism for CONSERVATIVES.  He has done this for the 20 years or more I have been familiar with him (becoming pretty darn familiar with his modus operandi and way of thinking during is many years as a virtual regular on the "Imus in the Morning" program--during those years when McCain PANDERED shamelessly to the mainstream media, which is a habit he still falls into).  There are many particular bones I have to pick with McCain (such as his position on illegal immigration, McCain/Feingold, and "global warming"), but this is the overriding reason Hell will freeze over before I ever vote for the man (even against the equally dangerous Barack Obama). 

Thus, we come to today's example of John McCain being a pinhead:  the ad the North Carolina Republican Party is running calling Barack Obama "too extreme for North Carolina".  The ad is directed at the GOVERNOR'S race in North Carolina, and is intended to suggest that the Democrats running for governor are out of touch with North Carolina because they have endorsed Barack Obama.  The ad pictures Barack Obama with Reverend Wright, and suggests that Obama's association with Reverend Wright over those 20 years constituted an implied endorsement by Obama of Wright's extreme anti-American views (which it did).  The ad quotes Wright's statement:  "God d--n America".  I have now heard this ad several times, and see nothing wrong with it (although I would have chosen Wright's statement that the U.S. government "invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color", which is not only anti-American and false, but racist hate speech (NO context can ssave it).

Now the North Carolina ad could have pictured Obama with domestic terrorist, William Ayers, who is white.  But, as this blog has said, Obama's association with Ayers is not nearly as close as his association with Wright, and it might actually be unfair to associate Obama with Ayers (who is WHITE, which is the point of this paragraph).  Reverend Wright happens to be black, as does Obama. So what.  Does that mean that they are immune from criticism?  Certainly, Hillary Clinton has not thought so.  Nor do I think so.  This idea that you can't criticize an African-American because he is black is RACIST.  (I have told you that the primary racists in the country today are leftists, and it is absolutely true).

There is nothing racist about the North Carolina ad.  The ad is saying that Obama was wrong to impliedly endorse this radical, anti-American pastor for 20 years--thereby associating Obama with that pastor's views (see the entry describing MSNBC and the North Carolina ad earlier this week).  If Wright and Obama were both white, no one would think twice about the ad.  It is a NORMAL, "negative" ad.  WHY is a black candidate immune from NORMAL (not racist) "negative" ads?  Now you can oppose "negative ads" in general, but to say that black candidates should be especially immune from them is RACIST.  MSNBC is, in fact, a very racist organization (which can be said, again, of most leftists).  As I said in that erlier entry, the IMMEDIATE reaction of MSNBC to the North Carolina ad was the RACIST reaction that Obama should be immune from such ads.

What is a "negative ad"?  It has absolutely nothing to do with race.  A negative ad is an ad that asks voters to vote AGAINST your opponent because of bad things about your opponent (his positons, some scandal, or alleged bad associations--such as the attempt by Democrats to associate McCain with President Bush.  Negative ad usually do not give a positive reason to vote FOR someone (sometimes they may contrast a postivie with the negatives).  They give reasons to vote AGAINST someone.  Is McCain "above" negative ads?  Not so you would notice.  He ran them AGAINST REPUBLICANS in the Republican nomination race (primarily against Romney).

Is the North Carolina "negative ad" any different than the negative ads you can expect from Democrats associating McCain with President Bush?  Of course it isn't.  Your own bias may suggest to you that it is "fairer" to associate McCain with Bush, and to suggest that McCain will mean no more than four more years of Bush, but the fact is that both appraoches ("guilt by association" with either Bush or Wright) are basically the same.  There is NO element of racism in the approach, or in the North Carolina ad.

Do not a lot of people vote AGAINST a candidate, more than they vote FOR a candidate?  Sure.  McCain had better HOPE they do, because that is the ONLY thing that may get him most conservative votes (not mine).  There is nothing really wrong with negative ads per se.  They call attention to the negatives of a candidate.  Should not the voters know about those?  Of course, they tend to engende the cyncial idea that there are no "good" candidates out there, but only candidates less bad than other candidates.  However, that cynical idea may well be ACCURATE.  For me, if I could stomach voting for McCain, it would certainly be accurate. 

Yet, McCain has been all over television today and yesterday CRITICIZING the North Caolina Republicans in the most vicious manner possible--directly pandering to the LEFTIST idea that ANY "negative" ad against Obama is RACIST (a RACIST concept in itself, to which McCain is pandering).  McCain is NOT saying that he opposes "negative ads", and therefore would prefer that the North Carolina people not run them (just like he would prefer all candidates and groups not run such ads).  While that would be astonishinglyl hypocritical, it would be a somewhat rational position (not entirely rational, because ALL candidates say at some point--directly or through the media or through surrogates--why voters should NOT vote for their opponents, even if they stick to a prtty positive overall message).  After all, "negative" is merely the other side of "positive".  If McCain says:  "I have the experience."   He is impliedly saying:  "My opponent does NOT have the experience."  In any event, McCain did NOT take on "negative" ads in general.  Rather, in typical McCain fashion (which has reduced me almost to foaming at the mouth over 20 years), McCain went off on the MSNBC, knee jerk reaction, that criticixm of an African-American is racist.  When McCain talks about the Republican Party being the "party of Lincoln", and that the North Carolina ad is demeaning and below the standards of the Republican Party, McCain can be saying nothing else.  Think of the INSULT that is to the North Carolina Republicans.  In fact, I regard it as an insult to ME, but I am so used to that from McCain that it no longer even hardly registers as an insult.  It jsut causes vomit to rise in my throat in disgust. 

In summary.  The North Carolina Repubican ad is NOT racist.  To even suggest that it is repressents a RACIST attitude that an African-American politician cannot be criticized like other politicians.  The worst that can be said of the ad is that it is "negative".

John McCain's over-the-top, insulting reaction to the North Carolina ad makes him a PINHEAD.

P.S.   More inferential evidence that Rush Limbaugh reads this blog.  Today, Rush suggested that McCain's self-indulgent "maverick" attitude is an invitation to conservatives and Republicans to ALL be "mavericks".  Why should the North Carolina Republicans show any loyalty to John McCain?  McCain has never shown any loyalty to THEM, or to conservatives or Republicans in general.  You will note how far ahead of the curve this blog has again shown itself to be.  That is EXACTLY the reasoning behind the name of this blog.  My idea is that "independent" conservative thinking is what we need in this country.  The Republican ESTABLISHMENT is hopelessly out of touch, and has shown no loyalty to conservatives.   McCain is even worse:  he caters to the MEDIA establishment, when he is not trying to use the Repblican, Washington establishment for his own benefit.   Nope.  I agree with Limbaugh (although I may have given HIM the idea).  Conservatives owe McCain NO loyalty.  Many may vote for him (not me) because of the alternative, but they shoud take the same attitude toward McCain that he takes toward them.  That attitude is to USE each other when we can, but to think totally independently, and be willing to criticize McCain in the most vicious terms.  As you can see, I practice what I preach on that one (although still willng to give McCain credit on those occasions when he happens to be right, as illustrated by the earlier entry today).

John McCain: Patriot

Nope.  This entry is not really about John McCain's patriotism (although I have no doubts about McCain on that score).  Nor does this entry constitute an endorsement of John McCain for President (the man confirms almost every day the reasons I CANNOT vote for him for President).  But I believe in giving credit where credit is due, even to a politician I can't stand (politically).  Thus, the word "patriot" is used in the title merely in the sense Bill O'Reilly uses the word in his "Pinheads" and "Patriots" section:  to refer to approval of a particular action.

In this case there are two actions/positons of John McCain that make him a "patriot" (as to these particular things).

First, John McCain has proposed a "moratorium" on Federal fuel taxes for the summer driving season.   That is the most direct and effective way of giving SOME price relief to motorists this summer.

The other issue that John McCain has raised is even more worthy, and one of the most damning indictments of this Adminstration that a politician could make.

WHY is our government (the Bush Administration) purchasing 70,000 barrels of oil A DAY for the emergency, "strategic oil reserve".  Does it make ANY sense to be purchasing oil above $100.00 a barrel?  And don't give me this total guff about the "law" requiring it (although you might note that DEMOCRATS have made hardly a peep about this insanity).  If President Bush, and the Bush Administration, did not want this to be happening, it would not be happening.   We shoulld be purchasing oil for the emergecy reserve when prices are DOWN--not when they are way UP.  Any other policy is simple insanity.  It is one of the many reasons--this total tone deafness--that I have suggested that President Bush (see previous entry on illegal immigration, where President Bush and McCain together have sabotaged any chance of making that a Republican issue, or of clarifying the issue for voters) has turned into a SABOTEUR of the Republican Party, and especially of conservative goals.   It is like President Bush has turned into the kind of mole in the Republican Party that I am in AOL.

John McCain, to his credit, has proposed suspending this insane policy of continuing to purchase oil for the strategic reserve when prices are this high.  You could argue that at least the THREAT of RELEASING oil from the reserve should be used, to changethe psychology of the speculative oil "market".  However, there are definite risks to that.  The strategic reserve is meant for a time of disrutption of the oil supply--a time of SHORTAGE.  There is presently no real shortage of oil  If we start using even the threat of release of oil to merely control prices, we risk the purpose of the strategic reserve.  We risk it merely becoming a political football.  Frankly, if I were President, I would be willing to take the risk/gamble of plaing chicken with the oil markets ("jawboning"), even though I would not actually DO more than a token release of oil from the reserve.  President Bush, however, is not made that way.  Regardless of that, however, it is absolute and utter insanity to keep purchasing oil for the "reserve", when oil rises in price to astronomical heights.  I don't think there is any practical, or even real theoretical, excuse for that.  John McCain has said essentially that, and for that he is a "patriot".

I have mentioned my brother before, who is co-owner of a trucking company.  My brother--no leftist he--is coming to think of President Bush as one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had--maybe THE worst. 

I disagree on that, because I don't consider Bush nearly the worst President even in my lifetime.  I consider Presidents Johnson (LOSING "War on Poverty" and War in Vietnam at the same time), Nixon, and Carter as MUCH worse than President Bush. 

However, you can understand how my brother feels.  His entire business is being put at risk.  He is perfectly aware that environmentalists (of the leftist kind) have a lot to answer for on here (as 2/3's of the oil resources of this country are "off limits" to exploitation, and new refineries can't be built, while new regulations add $8,0000.00 to the price of every truck, with more coming in 2010).  At the same time, my brother sees oil companies becoming ever bigger, BY MERGER (not by producing more oil), while Preisdnet Bush does more than just ignore the problem.  President Bush keeps on purchasing oil--MEANING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTLY HELPING RAISE THE PRICE OF OIL--even as the price rises to "record" after "record".  My brother rightly regards this as an insane indifference to his very livelihood--not to mention what he directly sees is disastrous for this country 

You can't convince my brother that President Bush is a good President.  And the continued purchase of oil for the strategic oil reserve is one of those "flash point" issues with my brother--havng a signficance beyond its (limited) real effect on oil prices.  To my brother, it is an illustration that President Bush lives in the same kind of fantasy world (just a different fantasy world) as leftists, where reality does not enter. You know what?  I have a hard time saying my brother is wrong on this one.

Threefore, John McCain's call for sanity here is also a call for some sense of reality.  For that, McCain is a "patriot" (even if he, himself, is divorced from reality on so many things--including the "global warming" type legislaton that threatens to RUIN my brother's business, and our economy, fully as much as insane oil policy).