Veto Beer vs Asthma Breathalyser

McCain, I'll veto every beer.

Obama decides that kids with asthma need a "breathalyzer".

So what does this prove? Well, the McCain flub is in a CNN headline, the BO flub had to be sleuthed off "Live Leak", and conservative website.

A Senior BO Moment?

Watch this and then imagine what the MSM coverage of it would be if it was McCain rather than BO. My thought on it is pretty much "Welcome, oh great and powerful BO to the human race!". This plots another point on his being "numerically challenged". He seems to be reaching for a number, and it just isn't there -- he can't recall if it would be millions, billions, or what, and the old gray matter just isn't working. We have ALL been there -- we technical people often on a name, but everyone has had the experience.

The nice part of being BO though is that when you have the experience, it is only the "right wing wackos" that are willing to point it out. If you are a Republican like Bush, they work to collect them all and make calendars out of them!

Why Are Gas Prices High?

If you listen to the MSM, gas is priced high due to some combination of global demand, speculation, failed Bush policies and Oil Company malfeasance. (Note, the Demcrats apparently haven't been involved in anything around energy for a long time). It all sounds complicated. My rule is that if the MSM has a complicated answer, then the answer is probably simple "Democrats"--if they have a simple answer (like "Bush"), then the answer is likely a bit more complicated.

How can you always oppose every single measure to improve production, spend a ton of words over decades indicating that "gas is priced too low" (as Democrats have), and then when it finally goes up again, you bear no blame for the policies that you have constantly encouraged? I guess that is the benefit of having the MSM in your pocket and a bunch of sheep that follow their every word.



Power Line: Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration

House Republicans: 90% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration

House Republicans: 81% Supported

House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

The Audacity of the Democrats

This article is very long, but VERY VERY worth the read! Most of what it says has been covered in Moose Tracks in the past, but this guy says it better and communicates many of the key facts much clearer (and even more concisely if one considers the time scope he is covering). READ IT!

(He completely slips a cog on his analysis of the 2006 election, but perfection is not something that real people are prone to)


American Thinker: The Audacity of the Democrats

A couple small excerpts for flavor, but these are LONG from doing this analysis any justice at all:

The Democratic Party has
devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the
self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pissed-off. It is a
sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes
find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering
of broad minds where man's timeless problems are examined against the
backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on
the actual realities of the human condition. It is now the political
province of the intellectually deceased, where frightened, lock-step
ideologues and other small men and women concoct and promote divisive,
destructive, weird and cowardly policies developed within a
not-so-quaint, quasi-Marxist stricture of gender, class and race.

It is common knowledge, supported by history, that war is fraught with uncertainties and surprises that cannot always be planned in advance for. It is the side in a conflict that best adapts and adjusts in response to those vagaries that usually wins. The slaughter of 5,000 US soldiers at Omaha beach in a single day during WWII was not trumpeted by the US media to America and to the world as evidence of imminent US defeat against the Nazis, nor did US politicians of that era cry for withdrawal from the larger battle when disasters like Omaha Beach and Corregidor happened. They did not publicize enemy successes during the vicious battles of Guadalcanal nor did they pronounce defeat whenever Americans suffered setbacks while fighting the fanatical Japanese. But throughout every phase of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts nearly every negative event, every disaster or perceived disaster, exploded across the front pages of the major US papers and was broadcast by Democrats from the halls of Congress as evidence of Bush's malevolence, stupidity or incompetence and as evidence of impending American defeat. Michael Yon, the Iraq conflict's Ernie Pyle, best sums up the result of that grinding media assault on the Iraq War and its American leaders:

"Enemy dominance of the media battle space translated quite directly into military setbacks. Terrorists from many countries swarmed into Iraq to be part of the victory they saw happening on the TV screens."

Glenn Beck, Iraq Victory

Commentary: Iraq victory possible, if we want it - CNN.com

Glenn Beck continues to be about the only bright spot for reason over at CNN. They call him "conservative", I think he is pretty much "rational / pragmatic". Not a lot of ideology at all. The whole article isn't that long, and well worth the whole read, but I found this to be especially. Clear and the part of Democrats that I can just never fathom. I have ZERO trouble giving Clinton credit for NAFTA and Welfare Reform. Democrats seem intent on defeat in Iraq even if they don't have to give Bush any credit ... say they "forced him to do the right thing", fine! Say "the Iranian's did it", SUPER. Just WIN BABY!

That is the part I truly don't get. It reminds me of the Cold War. OF COURSE they were going to say "Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with winning", they are Democrats, one can't expect truth or pragmatism. BUT, it goes even deeper than that, it was as if they really didn't want that wall to come down. They really didn't want to see the USSR defeated and the US as the only remaining super power. But why?

This is not a new phenomenon. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote "as
many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended
results." They made this statement on June 13, 2007 -- three days
before the surge was even fully implemented and three months before the
military had said it was fair to judge the progress.

I'm not
naïve. I understand that regardless of the actual progress, they were
going to say it wasn't working anyway. But if I may borrow some Eliot
Spitzer-esque language: Don't we pay them enough to at least fake their
sincerity?

I have been a supporter of our efforts in Iraq from
the beginning, although I've harshly criticized our tactics many times.
But, it's important to recognize what an opportunity we have right now.

We can win.

This is not about politics. Our winning this war does not mean that you
have to vote for John McCain. I might not even vote for McCain.

Some Democrats have claimed responsibility for the success of the
surge, saying that they forced Bush into changing strategies. Fine.

Nancy Pelosi says some of the success of the surge is based on the "the
goodwill of the Iranians." Whatever. We can argue about that later.
After we've won.

I'm not asking you to think
the war was a good idea, I'm just asking you to think winning the war
is a good idea. We know where we've been. Now, let's all honestly look
at where we are. We haven't seen a situation this promising for some
time, let's take advantage of it. I'm sure Barbara Walters will agree.

He is being nice to Barbara ... or just cynical. I'm pretty sure that it is absolutely locked in her brain that Iraq has to be a horrible defeat for the US and that is that. That is the core of what I don't understand-I was very pleasantly surprised by the economy of the late '90s under Clinton. Yes, it was a "bubble", but it was MUCH better than my expectations, GREAT! I don't even mind Clinton getting the credit for it! I was employed, moved to a new home, my stocks went up (and then down, but hey, it was fun while they went up!), I was wrong about how bad the effects of the tax increases would be on the economy. SUPER! I live here! I invest here (and overseas as well). I'm happy when we dodge a bullet and things go better than they maybe have a right to. I would strongly advise folks against driving drunk, but if they do anyway, I'm not going to hope they get in an accident so I can say "I told you so".

I suspect that somewhere down that path relative to emotion and poltics lies the answer of why Democrats actually WANT defeat in Iraq even if it means more deaths from terrorism in the future. Some emotion there is much the same that says that they want policies that punish the rich, even if those policies mean that everyone including themselves is worse off.

Finally, A Little Detail on "Change"

Power Line: The friends of Barack Obama

BO hangs around a different crowd than those bad bad Republicans. He needs some "Street Cred", so it is important that at least some of his cronies be convicted felons. Looks like "Uncle Tony" (Rezko) now helps fill that role. No doubt there will be more as we learn more about the nuance of BO. Uncle Tony was very very good to young BO -- raising over $250K (that we know of) for his campaigns, getting him a $300K discount on his $1.9 million home so he could have it for a paltry $1.6 mil, and then buying the lot next door for $600K and selling a third of it to BO for $100K (maybe Uncle Tony is just bad at math?).

Naturally, none of this really bears any scrutiny since BO is a Democrat. He STATED that he didn't think that Rezko had done him any special favors. Kind of makes you wonder how much green has to change hands in his neighborhood before he thinks it IS a "favor". Guess the "low bar" must be some place north of $500K to get you into that sought after "favor category".

I'm sure if BO were a Republican, the MSM would be ignoring the irony of Uncle Tony being convicted while BO is claiming his nomination. It is good to finally be getting just a little handle on what "change" really means.

The Power of BO

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Defining Moment for Our Nation

Here is an excerpt from the BO claiming victory in St Paul speech:

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Wow, the sick and the planet are healed and the seas obey the power of BO. All hail the messiah, forget "religion as a wedge", as long as we all worship the great and powerful BO, we can rise above the "horror" of the last 8 years, and really all of history. I can hardly wait to see how well he accepts responsibilty for the future! He DID say that THIS is the moment ... not months or years from now, so that wonderful "change" that we all certainly hope for is HERE! This should be a wonderful thing -- all that nasty finger pointing and divisiveness is soon to be over. We will all love that BO!

Remembering 30

30 years ago tonight I spent a quiet evening in a very quiet apartment waiting for the first day of my career. Symmetrically, tonight was kind of nice to spend a couple of hours with customers at the main site and then a dinner at a nice restaurant downtown with a General Manager whose 2nd line is the CEO and a group of higher level folks from the local site. It had nothing to do with my 30th anniversary, but the GM assured me that it would be impossible to get the paperwork through to get rid of me before tomorrow, so it looks like I make it.

The location of the apartment that I was in then is now under the massive city government center, and one of the "slum lords" that owned that apartment was a state senator here in MN for a number of years. A month after I moved in there was a devastating flood that destroyed a lot of the neighborhood around the apartment, but the building I was in survived.

I suspect that the home that we live in now was being built right around the time that I came to town, but the area between here and the plant was pretty much undeveloped. Lots of growth, lots of success in that 30 year period. Is it due to "change"? There is a bit of symmetry there as well in the world of the political. I didn't realize that I started work the day of the 10th (now 40th) anniversary of the Bobby Kennedy assassination. As I commented before, I can recall that news as an 11 year old, so I guess the 5th of June has some connections in my life.

Looks like I'll close up the night with some wine at the firepit with my wife, and then a lot of customer time tomorrow for the actual anniversary day.

BO "Commands" Respect

Power Line: Obama commands respect

The PL guys do a good enough job here that I have nothing to add. They pick up well the thread of just how impressive BO believes he really is. The "accomplishments" at the end of the piece are especially good--that horrible McCain, failing to recognize BO as having "served" on a level with McCain. When Kerry ran, we heard a lot from the MSM about how heroic he was and how anyone that didn't recognize that and honor it -- especially in contrast with that "draft dodging silver spoon fighter pilot W", was simply not patriotic. I have this strange feeling that military heroism may not be such an important qualification for President this time around with the MSM as it was with Kerry?

There is no task that can't be accomplished by just adding more government -- and to have any questions on that is just to be "mean spiritied".

Titanic Part of Thresher and Scorpion Search

Titanic Was Found During Secret Cold War Navy Mission

Interesting little tidbit. I got to see Bob Ballard talk at a business meeting a decade or so ago. Sounds like the subs went down from mechanical, not military causes and the reactors are having no significant impact at the bottom of the sea.

Minting Trillionaires?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - BET founder to push for Clinton as Obama’s VP pick « - Blogs from CNN.com

BO will be able to bring this nation together. Once the discrimination is gone, a guy like Bob Johnson ought to be able to be a Trillionaire! ... er, I'm not sure. Aren't "the rich" bad? Oh, I guess that is just if they are Republicans-or maybe white? It gets hard to tell sometimes, but I'm sure that BO will explain it all to us.

The Last Lecture

This book, by a Computer Science PHD named Randy Pausch is a little less theoretical than a lot of the books I read. He is in his late 40's and in the process of dying of pancreatic cancer. He married late, so has three small children, the oldest of which is 6.

Thanks to the modern world, one can follow his odyssey here, due to the wonders of technology.

I'm not going to try to summarize the book, it is short, easy to read and worth it. The lecture itself is out linked off the site, those of you with higher speed connections can look at that as well-- I haven't yet, but I'm sure I will and it will be worth the time spent.

The inside front cover has his version of one of my favorite quotes; " We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand". I'm not a card player, but the logic of playing the hand you are dealt in life as well as you can rather than complaining endlessly of the poor quality of your hand and the unfairness of some other guys hand has always appealed to me.

Is pancreatic cancer to a guy that seems as nice as this one an extremely unfair hand? That sure is how it feels, BUT, the amount of time spent making that judgment is completely useless. It solves nothing, doesn't improve your life any (in fact, it no doubt makes it worse), and it certainly doesn't help Randy or his family any.

It turns out that the chemo has kept him alive for longer than what was expected. When he was diagnosed, it was 3-6 months of decent health. He is well beyond that now, but the tumors seem to be growing and spreading, so his reprieve seems to be coming to an end.

He has certainly packed a good deal into his life to date and knows enough to be thankful for the days so far and for each day he gets to have. That attitude will give one way more hope than any political candidate, and will greatly increase the odds that you will be able to deal positively with the changes that come your way.

Six Theses On Obama

Power Line: Six theses on Obama

Nice little snippet, very worth the read. I went off and read some of the links. One of the very core elements on BO is that supposedly he was "always right on Iraq". The interesting thing is that he wasn't in the Senate when he took that position in 2002, and my guess is that he MAY be just smart enough to have made a great bet relative to his party. Since he didn't have access to the information that the other Democratic Senators had (all of the ones of which were thinking of running voted FOR the resolution), then it was the smartest of him to cast his lot against the war. If the war turned out to go better than predicted, he could always claim that "had he had the information that US Senators had, he would have made the right decision". If the war became unpopular (as it did), he would have a good card. Premeditated or not, that is how it turned out, and that is his strongest appeal to the Democrat left and the MSM.

A closer examination of BOs statements on Iraq will show that like nearly every other issue, he has been firmly on both sides of it at different times. He has supported more troops for victory in 2004-2005, and then completely rejected the idea and declared "adding more troops will not improve the situation" prior to Bush executing the surge that now clearly HAS improved the situation (at least for those that have a footing in objective reality).

The bottom line is that the creature that we see from the MSM and his campaign is basically mythical. It appears that the Democrats and the MSM are committed to seeing that myth in the oval office, this throw of the dice is certainly unprecedented in my lifetime, essentially, other than "way left", this guy has no history that would indicate even marginal ability to be President.

Bennett on Choosing of BO

The Corner on National Review Online

I find this to be WAY too complimentary of BO. Jimmy Carter may have proven to be a disaster, but he was the Governor of a decent sized US state prior to taking the Presidency. That is HUGELY more experience than BO has had. Even Slick was a Governor--and as Bennett wisely leaves him out, he RAN as a "new Democrat" and he was clear enough in at least his lies to make it clear that he imagined that to be "centrist". I'm afraid we will find that Carter cost us very little in comparison to BO. Pain is relative.

And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate
in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military
and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a
far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit
without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic
party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of
John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the
Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate
in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s
religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all
these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience
to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the
instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama.
And the Democratic party has chosen him.

The Price of Talk, McCain vs BO on Iran

RealClearPolitics - Articles - McCain's Speech to AIPAC

The whole speech is worth reading, but this excerpt is especially revealing. BO is allowed by the MSM to utter any whim and their braying support follows immediately with no concern for the potential harm that could result. What harm could there be in talking? McCain has been around long enough, and even spent some time in prison camps himself with "patriots" like Jane Fonda "just talking" to know that while talk is often cheap, only the naive believe that it can't also be costly beyond measure.

What happens the moment after Tel Aviv is incinerated by an H-bomb? Does everyone negotiate some more? Naturally, all the talk by the Defeatocrats on Iraq hasn't done anything to encourage the folks we are fighting -- it is perfectly fine for leader of the Senate to state that "we have lost in Iraq" months before the surge forces even get there. Remember when it was CERTAIN that Iraq was in "civil war", and the situation was "hopeless"?

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And
the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage
in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In
reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and
none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the
secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a
roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The
Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary
Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But
even under President Khatami -- a man by all accounts less radical than
the current president -- Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership
offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that
somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what
such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an
earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who
denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting
another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents,
as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly
acquire the appearance of respectability.