Range Time SP100 First Outing

It hit 50 yesterday so I went out to the range mostly to test out the new Ruger SP100 pistol. The pics above are of my personally customized little 35 year old Ruger 10/22 however. I mounted a Nikon 2-7x scope that I was thinking of using for deer last fall on it and a custom folding pistol grip stock from Midway. I spent a little time dialing it in and then did a 25 yard fairly rapid fire at the bulls eye with 25 rounds in a magazine. Not a lot of center left, really fun little gun. Sort of a "mini assault rifle".

I don't have any targets that impressive with the SP100, but I throughly enjoyed putting 150 rounds of mixed .38, .38+P and .357 Mag through it. I feel as confident as the .9mm XD right out of the box with it, and I'm having the same "low side of target" shooting problem with the SP100 as I do with the XD, so it seems certain that we are talking "operator error". I'm anticipating the shot. Both .38 and +P are a joy to shoot with the heft of the gun and the grip size, and while .357 isn't a "joy", it certainly can be done without much pain, although I suspect that it will be more of a novelty unless I decide to pack it along on a hike in black bear / mountain lion country. It seems like .38+p is one heck of a solid self defense round.

No buyers remorse whatsoever, one simply MUST have at least one revolver, and .357 mag with all the versatility of rounds available seems the obvious choice. Having shot the GP100 with a 6" barrel vs my 2" barrel, it is clear that for accuracy on targets the 6" is a big advantage, but the ability to easily carry concealed with the SP100 seems worth the trade-off to me. Great little gun.

OH ... Bama, Musically

Pretty creative and fun to watch. Since it seems that a lot of the "creative class" has a liberal bent, the vast majority of weeknight comedy shtick, music and other "popular arts" tend to be far over to the left, increasing that view that to be "smart and hip" is to be liberal.

The vast majority is still there, but the web lets the "2nd string" get involved as well.

MSM Does It's Job with McCain

I've often said that if the MSM treated Democrats the same as Republicans, they would be doing a great job. McCain has supported campaign finance measures that I believe are completely wrong headed in the first place and at least ought to be unconstitutional. Of course, the press loved McCain and Feingold being "bi-partisan" on Campaign Finance Reform (CFR).

While it is impossible for a Democrat to by a hypocrite in the MSMs eyes though, the same is not true of a Republican. The NYT goes out of their way to point out McCain actions that are against the "spirit" of reforms that he supported. Should he be held to a higher standard after getting the accolades of supporting CFR? Sure--how about Al Gore on the environment, Bill Clinton on sexual harrassment, and virtually every wealthy Democrat in office relative to taxation? Most DEFINITELY!! As it is, McCain will pay the price for his relatively minor hypocracy, while BO and Hillary will blather about all sorts of "taxing the rich" while they hold and add to their millions and avoid those taxes via clever loopholes, and the MSM and it's millions of sheep won't even be the least bit cognizant of the double standard.


CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

Financial Franken Questions

Hey, the Strib is at least CARRYING some of the information.

He is a quote from his campaign manager that I love:

"Al spent the week doing an economy tour of the state," Barr said,
adding "We're not hearing about this except from the Republican Party.
..."

Golly, the MSM doesn't seem willing to go out and do any digging on a Democrat Senate candidate, that is certainly something unique! Obama attended an anti-American anti-white church for 20 years and nobody in the MSM thought that was a news story during his Senate race - If Hillary hadn't brought it up it STILL wouldn't be news. It is only for Republicans they are willing to really go the extra mile and forge documents to try to defeat them.

Apparently a lot of the reason that Al is in favor of high taxes and a lot of business regulation is because even though he makes a lot of money and is a small businessman, he just doesn't bother to pay the taxes or follow the regulations. Why should he? He knows he is a nice guy, and those taxes and regulations are there to keep the evil Republicans in line, not to bother a great guy like Al!

April Flurries, Warming Worries?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020387.php

We are suffering a cold weekend here in MN. There was snow in the air here in SE MN, but not the sticking stuff. The combination of a lot of wind and temps in the lower 40s felt plenty cold though.

The Powerline link above is a good one, but I think it also shows the general futility of trying to offset the MSM/sheep connection. Most people simply want to have the POPULAR VIEW. Yes, they may feel some "cognitive dissonance" while they see the snow fall in April, but they will see no news articles on how this might mean that GW isn't as certain as sometimes reported. When we have our next good warm spell, reporting of GW will be back. We have gone two years with no hurricanes hitting the US when it was predicted that GW would cause MANY more and each would be more severe. BUT, there was no reporting that those predictions not being true in the last couple years to cast any doubt on the predictions.

I find it tiresome to listen to discussion of GW or to engage in it myself. My personal belief is that temps in decades or even multiple decades can flucuate up or down and not mean anything that we can understand. BUT, I'm not a climatologist (and neither is Al Gore). The fact that GW is such a big story and political issue for the left, and the degree to which the MSM can get the sheep to follow is really the main story in my view.

I believe the longer term climate record supports my "it fluctuates" view.

Bitterly Clinging

Slightly in honor of BO (but mostly in honor of the $100 off a $500 purchase to Cabella's credit card holders), I journeyed to Cabella's this evening and purchased a new Ruger SP 101 .357 Mag, stainless 5 shot revolver with a 2" barrel. I have a fairly wide hand, so a lot of the smaller pistols don't fit my hand, and I can't "bitterly cling" as securely as I would like. This little number lets me get a good hold so that BO will have to work some to pry my cold dead fingers off the 2nd amendment. Hopefully I'll be reporting on how it shoots this weekend.



While I'm at my reporting, I picked up a folding composite stock for my 35+ year old Ruger 10/22 that has 1000s of rounds fired through it, and at least in my youth, not always the BEST of care. I pulled the Nikon 2-7X scope off a slug gun, picked up a few 30-round mags, and wala, a pretty cool little plinking gun. My wife has already laughed at it, but a few folks have walked over at the range to indicate appreciation and questions of "what is that"?

The guy that sold the pistol to me at Cabella's was a 2-tour to Iraq Marine. He didn't seem all that bitter about the Iraq war, but I'm sure he was just hiding it well! BO, Hillary and the whole MSM can't possibly be wrong that it is a hopeless waste of lives based on lies -- because we know that they would CERTAINLY be taking the views of ex-Marines that served as a very high indicator of the truth. Right? I mean, to even question Kerry the war hero of Vietnam in '04 was the HEIGHT of "unpatriotic", so we know that a guy that has been back less than a year (as opposed to 30+) would have pretty good recollections of anything "seared into his brain".

NYT Beats Up Hillary

This little NYT editorial is a great opportunity to see how the left thinks and how narrow their view really is. Some points:

• "inconclusive"? Do they believe in votes anymore? A 10% margin is "inconclusive"? I assume there is only one answer that they will call "conclusive"-Obama wins, but can they state their bias any more blatantly?
  
• Hillary is the candidate that they endorsed!! THEY picked her, not "Karl Rove". She is the Senator from NEW YORK, which they endorsed for that position as well. She and Bill used far worse tactics against Republicans for 8+ years, and the NYT stood and applauded!!
  
• "Right from Karl Rove's playbook". Is Rove actually Lucifer? Let's see, did John Kerry ever talk about "Osama Bin Ladin is still at large"? Have we really arrived at the point that NOBODY, not even another Democrat can point out FACTS if they don't cast the MSMs current favorite in the best possible light?
  
• "after 7 years of George Bush's failed with us or against us presidency". Ok, we know the position of the NYT, but that is old news. To them, every Republican President is a failure--before they even take the oath. We may or may not be in a recession--Clinton's presidency ended in a recession, was he a failure? He also had a stock market crash in March of 2K, so I guess his presidency was a BIG failure. In fact, 9-11 happened 8 months after he left office and he failed to nab Bin Ladin--oh, but he was a Democrat, so I guess he had a "successful presidency" ... at least if you are the NYT.
• So the NYT and rest of the MSM believes that whomever their "anointed one" is deserves nothing but "positive dialog on the issues"? Meanwhile, questions of 30 year old guard records, DWIs, spelling of words, "a smirk", "leaks", etc, etc are all completely legitimate to be used against a Republican? No double standards there!!
• I would assume that about 50% of the Dems and hopefully even more can see the blatant bias of the media now. Maybe even some of the BO supporters can be a LITTLE open minded since it is "good old Hillary" that is being beaten up now -- one of their own WONDERFUL Clintons! The very flower of humanity--why if it wasn't for how much MORE lovely BO is, and how much more he has promised their greedy little hearts, they would be in a swoon over how great SHE was!!!
  

The Low Road to Victory (New York Times)

Published: April 23, 2008

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, morre vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

Hilly Wins! (MSM Mourns)

But the NYT Isn't very happy about it. Golly, the "hometown paper" of the "Jr Senator from NY" that endorsed her candidacy for President and in a state where she won the primary handily is worried about how "negative" her campaign has been.

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it," the board writes.

So I thought Hillary WON the Pennsylvania primary by a double digit margin? The NYT considers that "inconclusive"? I've never seen the NYT concerned about the Clinton's, some other Democrat or the paper itself saying anything "negative" about any Republican, even if it had WAY less factual or informational content than Hilly's pillow fight with poor defenseless BO.

She is just a nasty mean girl I guess and if she doesn't stop beating up on poor BO the Times is going to have to continue to throw hissy fits! I would imagine that his "ryhemsake" Osama will be much "kinder and gentler" that bad girl Hilly.

One would have thought that the Dems had the election on a silver platter, but I keep forgetting that the Democrats and the MSM really ARE liberals-things like dealing with reality, taking responsibility, getting something done or (horror of horrors) "making a DECISION!!!" are against their very nature.

Jimmuh Diplomacy

Power Line: Nice Going, Jimmuh

PL has a nice title. Ah yes, the rabbit killer. As President he thought the Soviets could be trusted and made nice with them, so they invaded Afghanistan and he punished the US farmers and atheletes with grain embargo and the olympic boycott. Planner of The Jimmy Carter Desert Classic", the perfect Democrat military operation where only Americans died and nothing at all was accomplished. As the vaunted ex-President he "negotiated" a "deal" with the N Koreans where we gave them a bunch of stuff and they promised to not build nukes -- which of course they didn't honor.

The lefties generally love Jimmuh, he is their kind of guy. Complains a lot, incompetent, probably pretty "book smart" but extremely sure he is way better than reality says he is. Like a true lefty, he is unfazed by the lack of success or even damage that his actions cause, he is SURE that "his heart is in the right place".

2 Timothy 2
5 Treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

He is pro-abortion and pro gay "marriage" ... so the "form of godliness" is weak these days. 

The Hand-Wringing Rolls On

"Swift Boating" has apparently now been extended from "a release of potentially negative facts about a Democrat by someone on the right" to "any release of damaging information about a Democrat (or potentially the new level only applies to BO)". Naturally the official MSM view is that anything negative about a Democrat that they like is by definition either false, unimportant or both. For Slick Willie, charges of rape were both unimportant and obviously false with no investigation required at all. For Bush, 30 year old charges about his Gaurd record that turned out to be false were worthy of hour long prime-time specials.

Good to see the major MSM outlets like Newsweek hot on making sure that BO only has a GOOD side!


Can Obama Repel 'Swift Boat'-Style Attacks? | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com

Consider a Conservative BO

Quoted from Powerline, nothing much to add other than this is EXACTLY the seeds of true fascism. The suppression of any questioning of "the supreme leader". We get some hints in BOs answers how much he dislikes having his omnicience questioned--why should a mere media person have any right whatsoever to question "his supreme excellency BO"?

Consider this thought experiment: Assume that a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination spent two decades at a church whose senior pastor was a white supremacist who uttered ugly racial (as well as anti-American) epithets from the pulpit. Assume, too, that this minister wasn’t just the candidate’s pastor but also a close friend, the man who married the candidate and his wife, baptized his two daughters, and inspired the title of his best-selling book.

In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”

Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”

The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism.

Democrats Pledge "No New Taxes"

No Whining About the Media - Campaign Stops - 2008 Elections - Opinion - New York Times Blog

This is by David Brooks, the long time token "conservative" on the NYT editorial board. I happened to hear the part of the debate on the "no new taxes", and I was somewhat surprised, but I completely disagree with David. The only reason Bush Senior's "No New Taxes" pledge hurt him is because he is a REPUBLICAN. The idea that Brooks thinks for a SECOND that either Clinton or BO are going to stand by their pledges to not "raise taxes of any kind" on INDIVIDUALS making less than $250K a year is complete hocum and everyone ought to know it. It is "rhetoric to get elected".

Part of the reason one has to try to parse the "nuance" of what Democrats say is because "nuance" is AT BEST all one is going to get. There is no question that their statements on taxes are bold faced lies - only by trying to "read through the entrails" of things like their books, web-sites and off the cuff remarks on things like "bitterness" and race can one hope to get a glimpse behind the packaged creation that the MSM and Democrats provide as a candidate. I think his estimate of "$40 billion" on taxing "the rich" is quite high, those are the people that have the MOST freedom to move income around (including off shore), forgoing income and leaving investments in other assets, etc. They aren't the sitting ducks that people like us tax slaves are.

It gives one pause to realize that the NYT's CONSERVATIVE is lamenting that "It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money." Brooks thinks that tax increases are going to be the way to increase revenue - apparently at the NYT, even the "conservatives" are fixed economy sized liberals. If the economy is $1000 and taxes are 10% you get $100 in tax. If it a static economy, raising taxes 1% gives an extra $10. However if the economy is growing at 5% a year, NO NEW TAXES will give you a $1050 total economy next year with tax revenue of $105, $1,102.5 the following year with taxes of $110.25, or a .25 premium for NOT raising taxes, AND, the economic growth picture just gets better and better.

Fortunately for the tax cutter and UNfortunately for the tax increaser, the economy is FAR from static. Time and time again raising taxes either slows or stops growth, and raising taxes in the face of a slowing economy is an excellent way to induce, prolong and deepen recessions. As Reagan proved, when the upper income people stop working, the whole train slows rapidly--the lead actor fails to take that extra picture this year because "it isn't worth it", and all the supporting actors, the studio, the stage hands, the wardrobe people, etc are out of job and the economy slows. By millions and billions of "little" decisions like that across the economy, the earning potential of all is removed.

This problem is as old as "The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg". There are no limits on the appetite for gold, especially OTHERS gold, and the true "greedy" are those that think that their lives benifit by sucking more funds away from those who earn them. In the end, they "kill the goose", and it is those with the greatest need that suffer the worst. The rational and the productive slow their work output, take extra training, move their dollars to areas where the government is not penalizing their productivity and the overall tax revenues and the economy slow.

We have WAY better data on how this operates than Global Warming, and human beings are FAR more in control of the economy than the environment (the economy is human created). The left just refuses to accept how economics works, so they persist in taking steps that "kill the goose". Like moths to the fire, they just can't seem to get it through their heads that they MUST have the most productive people working at very close to peak efficiency if they want to keep growth going. There is no difference between their plans and putting "ankle weights" (or maybe both wrist and ankle weights) on the best atheletes in baseball, basketball, football, etc and then see how entertaining the game is.

The lefties are always braying about "diversity", but the REAL diversity that matters is diversity of talent, intelligence, drive, personality, innovation, risk taking, have different thoughts, different spiritual and emotional responses. Skin color, gender, sexual preferences and all the other "lefty diversity" are quite boring in comparison. The constant attempts to gain "equality of result", or "more civility" are really just attempts to REMOVE the true myriad of diversities that make human life and spirit wonderful gifts from the infinite.

Agreeing With BO

I got to hear a little bit of the Democrat debate at noon today re-broadcast on NPR. A couple of things struck me. First of all, it must be great to be questioned by a guy that was the communications director in your husbands administration, which George Stephanapolis was. It is pretty funny that Tim Russert on NBC served as counselor in New York Governor Cuomo in 83-84 and was chief of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982. Chris Matthews over on CNBC worked on Senator Edmund Muskie's staff, as a speechwriter for Jimmuh, (including much of the "Malaise" speech). He then worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil.

Can anyone name any similar connections for Republican's in the MSM? Oh, but of course none of these folks have any bias, they just "dropped it" when they moved in the revolving door from the Democrats to the media. It sounds like a lot of BO supporters think that George S was too tough on old BO, and are blaming it on his connection with the Clinton's in the past. WOW, liberals believing that there is some potential that the folks doing the news are normal biased humans. Will wonders never cease. Naturally, this will not apply to cases like Mathews and Russert, because that would e "small minded consistency".

That brings me to this and my agreement with BO, he responded to a Stephanopolis question on his relationship with Bill Ayers of the Weathermen who said on 9-11-2001: ''I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough.''

George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about ["the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief"].

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Why you know at least in principle, he is absolutely right! Republican's should NEVER have to explain why they don't agree with David Duke even though he ran as a Republican once, since not only DON'T they agree with him, hardly any of them have ANY association with him at ALL. But often, they are linked with him anyway, and the MSM constantly brings him up and many of them have been forced to repudiate his views anyway. We all know that it isn't very good to have to issue a "denial" (eg. "I don't beat my wife" ... most people will assume there must be SOME reason you had to issue the denial). However, the fact that sitting DEMOCRAT US Senator Bob Byrd was a recruiter in the KKK is pretty much a state secret.

How about Bob Jones University? If a Republican appears there does it mean that they agree with everything that Bob Jones has ever done? Well, golly, BO went to a racist church for TWENTY YEARS and dedicated his book to a Pastor that said "God Damn America" after 9-11 -- it is COMPLETELY "unfair" for us to indicate that choice of church or dedication of his book has ANYTHING to do with his views! Any double standard there?

Speaking of 9-11, why did the MSM make such a big deal our of comments of the like of Falwell and Robertson of 9-11 being "judgment for sin" and then do all they could to point out any relationship they could of "the religious right" to Bush and other Republicans? In CA the LA paper made a big deal out of Schwarzenegger's FATHER being a Nazi sympathizer as he ran for Gov. Might it be in his blood? Now there is a good one--how frequently do we hear of Bush or other Republicans being compared with "Hitler" or "Nazis" when they have done nothing at all to indicate they have any sympathy with any Nazi view.

The fact is that "guilt by association", often made up out of TOTALLY complete cloth used against Republicans by Democrats and the MSM is a DAILY way of life!

One has to laugh a bit at the "similarity" between a Weatherman bomber, now a tenured professor who on 9-11 says that the Weathermen "didn't do enough bombing" and a Republican in the house who no doubt considers Abortion murder -- and we in fact live in a country where the law says that the penalty for murder can be death. The fact that the BO brain sees folks bombing buildings and sitting Republican Senators as "equivalent" might be just a little chilling to the few folks that are still firing any logical brain circuits on the BO "mystique".

BO (and most of te MSM) is also pretty ticked that folks "parse his words". Golly, I bet Tent Lott finds that to be pretty special, he lost his leadership slot because of off-hand comments at a birthday party. I think EVERYONE understands there was no racist intent there at all, it was merely a great opportunity for the MSM and the Democrats to play political "gotcha", extract a pound of flesh from a specific Republican, and help tar the whole party with their false racist association. When the game is played against Republicans, the Democrats and MSM find it to be "proper politics".

Obama himself is CONSTANTLY saying "McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years", which is completely NOT what McCain said. He is also CONSTANTLY claiming that "McCain thinks the Bush economy is fine", only because McCain is willing to point out a few odd facts like personal income growth, consecutive quarters of growth, amount of growth, etc have been BETTER under Bush than they were under Clinton. Oddly, the Democrats took over both houses of congress a year ago promising "change", and we seem to have it - there looks like there may be a recession now.

So Obama has an excellent point. If we WERE to operate for ALL the way he thinks we ought to operate for HIM, then this might indeed be a more civil country. As it is, it is pretty obvious that his view is that we ought to treat HIM specially, and allow both him and the MSM to CONSTANTLY behave in a pattern that is MUCH WORSE in their treatment of Republicans than he has experienced. Just a little wiff of what a BO America might smell like!

Democrats and Al Qaeda Agree Again

Al Qaeda declares 'failure and defeat' for U.S. troops in Iraq - CNN.com

One sometimes wonders if there really is any difference between "Osama Obama" and "Osama Bin Ladin". Both seem to agree on the "failure in Iraq" view. Oh, I guess Obama would see Bin Ladin as somewhat "bitter and clinging to his guns" ... I suppose that is primarily because he is "living in a rural area".

Actually, Harry Reid and a lot of the Democrats have been well out ahead of Bin Ladin on this one, declaring defeat early and often relative to the troops in Iraq. That is not to say they don't "support" them--it is just that the Democrat version of "support" has a lot of "nuance", which to the less well educated means the same thing as "we think America is going to lose".

First Campfire 2008

It at least basically hit 70 here Wednesday April 16th and the wind died down in the evening. My wife's folks were up to see our son in the musical "Oklahoma" at school, and I talked at least my wife and her Dad into sitting around the firepit with the propane heater on high for our first firepit outing of the year.

I noticed on the news it was the longest span between 70 degree days here in MN since '98, which matches up with my view of "10 years of mild winters". One point plotted does not make a trend, so maybe we really are warming up and this is just a "cold" (I'd say "normal") winter that will not be quickly repeated. I have nothing invested in global warming one way or another, sure, I'd like to see it be bunk, and I'd THINK that nearly everyone would.

I would have thought that everyone would like to see the Surge in Iraq be successful and the USSR be defeated as well and I was wrong on those, so I suspect that there are a whole bunch of folks that will re-write history if it turns out that the spell of warm winters was a climate cycle based on sunspots, ocean currents or something that we just don't understand rather than human activity. One thing I AM sure of is that we won't be hearing Al Gore and the MSM EVER saying "we were wrong".