What the MSM Reports

More than half firearm deaths are suicides - CNN.com

I don't have time to go do any research, but a couple of things come to mind as I read this.

1). How many deaths are caused by smoking, fatty foods, alcohol, falls and our old favorite, car accidents? So should we outlaw those things?

2). So where would the person writing this article be on the "right to die"? I'd guess they would be very much in favor of it -- Dr assisted suicide and all that. I don't like to see society "making suicide easy", by saying "just go into your doctor and he will help you". Because down that path it isn't very far to "our best advice is to kill yourself". It just seems odd to me to see an anti-gun person saying that a constitutional right has to be given up "because some might kill themselves".

3). I suspect the "gun homes are more likely..." has a causality problem. Folks that have guns to protect their home and family are more "responsible". In cultures where people take responsibility, suicide rates are higher -- Japan, China, etc ... "face is lost" and they feel like "suicide is the only way out". I disagree with the choice, but making taking responsibility illegal isn't going to fix it, and most likely will make it worse. The Scandinavian countries have worked hard to remove personal responsiblity from life, and they are plagued with a very high suicide rate -- and I'd bet it isn't predominately from guns.

Wesley Clark Doesn't Like McCain's Experience

McCain campaign: Clark's comments 'sad' - CNN.com

One has to be Democrat to think like this. McCain doesn't have enough experience? But he is an adviser to Obama? Huh? Wouldn't someone that had a couple shreds of rationality in their brain think that "hmm, maybe "experience" isn't what I want to call attention to". Nope, doesn't even register in a Democrat brain. No matter what experience a Republican has, it is "bad", no matter how much experience a Democrat might lack, it is certainly not a problem.

That is pretty much ideologue in a nutshell, and the kind of thinking that drives the ideological MSM every day.

North Korea and Iran

Power Line: North Korea and Iran in the News

I'm not going to go dig back in the blog right now, but I'm pretty sure that the MSM and a bunch of Democrats wanted Bush to do "bi-lateral talks" with N Korea as opposed to pushing them into 6-party regional talks. No matter, the MSM and the Democrats seem to find "anti-Bush" to be way more important than "pro-American".

While I'm never going to say "trust N Korea" until they have some sort of elections and openness, it seems very hard to argue that them blowing up a nuclear cooling tower, and at least having SOME level of inspections and agreements would be "progress" if it were not during the Bush administration. Just wait until BO gets in, I suspect we will see a mass MSM pants wetting over way less progress than this if it can somehow be linked to BO. The sad part is I suspect that BO "progress" is likely to be a lot like Jimmuh Carter "progress", which just means "we got snookered, and the future is MUCH less safe" (not the current "fake less safe").

While President, Jimmuh handed Iran over to the Mullahs and then gave us the "Jimmy Carter Desert Classic" military action, a textbook of a Democrat military action. Only Americans die, they just run into each other, they don't even engage the enemy, the only outcome is a vast (justifiable) reduction in the world view of US capability. As a private citizen Jimmuh went over and schmoozed with Kim Jung Ill, gave away the store and allowed N Korea to get a bunch of stuff from us PLUS continue their nuclear program. Oh, Slick Willie was actually supposed to be president then, but nobody seems to hold him responsible for that debacle. I suppose he was "busy" ... he really needed a desk set with sort of a "Trumanesque sign" that says "The Stain Starts Here", but I digress.

So rather than have anything reasonable to say about N Korea, it seems that the MSM has decided it is a good idea to come up with a fake Iran invasion as a way to control a couple of news cycles. Nice of them to be so helpful-if it is a complete fantasy (seems the most likely), then the reporting just gets folks feeling more worried about oil, the economy and such. MSM / Democrat win. If there IS any truth to it, then it just helps remove some potential elements of surprise, potentially gets some CIA folks caught and killed. ANOTHER MSM win ... help out the Iranians, kill some more CIA folks (which they generally hate unless they can be used to fake something out to make Bush look bad), either stop or reduce the chances of success for a military operation.

Now one might think that there COULD be a downside. What if the Iranians actually are closer to a nuke than most folks know, and they get one off at Israel and start WWIII? Well, as long as they do it "soon" (and the MSM will try to extend that definition as long as possible), then that is OK as well. "Bush did it" ... "Bush made us less safe". That would actually be the BEST from an MSM / Democrat POV. With progress in Iraq and N Korea walking away from the nuclear button, some non-sheep might get the odd idea that maybe some of this seems strangely like "more safe"? Can't have that. Iran is the hardest nut to crack, very important to keep progress from happening there.

What Is Wrong With Gun Control?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - How Gun Control Lost

Nice little summary ... the stats and more facts in the article, but the basic answer:

1). It doesn't work -- Increasing control of guns has never been demonstrated to reduce gun crime. Duh? How many criminals care that the gun they are using is illegal? Anyone ever notice that drugs are illegal as well?

2). Turns out the founders enumerated and INDIVIDUAL right because they wanted INDIVIDUALS to have the right, not the military. (unlike today's lefties, these guys were generally intelligent-they didn't see the question of the military having guns as being worth discussing).

ANYONE that had ANY interest in "freedom" and "rights" would be 100% on the side of individual gun rights (for law abiding sane people). The folks that want the government to take guns are folks that either are too foolish to understand the path that totalitarianism takes, or are interested in seeing our nation head that way.

American Solutions

These guys seem to be mostly common sense.

I don't really like their #10 and the whole "survey says" thing is much less than perfect, but one has to try to hold their nose and support what little positive is out there in the age of BO.

Top 10 Reasons YOU Should Support the Platform

1. English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
2. We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
3. The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
4. Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
5. Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
6. Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
7. We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8)
8. We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8)
9. Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
10. We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)

It is an amazing time. I suppose the lefties are just as surprised by the fact that not drilling anywhere or building any refineries means that we have less gas and diesel as they will be by the fact that when you raise a lot of taxes you get a lot less revenue for the government and a lot less productivity for everyone. Oh well, I guess a major part of being a lefty is enjoying your own imagination more than the real world.

The lefties are a wonderful people. Their "assumed rights" to everything from healthcare to "the lifestyle they want to be accustomed to" are a critical thing, but those that need to work to produce all that good stuff ought to just be happy with what they happen to decide we can have and keep our noses to the grindstone.

What Does the MSM Really Believe?

Bear Market Guide: Stay calm, make money - Jun. 27, 2008


Here is a little gem from within this article out on CNN today:

Put today's economic peril in perspective

Before you panic over today's headlines, and how far stocks could fall, consider the relative health of today's economy.

In the early 1970s, economic output was falling. But today, despite the sluggishness, GDP is still inching ahead.

In the early 1980s, unemployment hit 10.8%. Today, the rate is 5.5%, or about half that.

Inflation topped 12% in the 1970s and 14% in the early 1980s. Today, it's at 4%.

So if you read the rest of the MSM, today is a "horror". We are CERTAINLY in a "recession", it is just a "new kind". Apparently the new definitions are that anything sort of an absolutely stellar market, econonomy, low inflation, low prices, strong dollar, etc with a Republican in the White House is a "poor economny". "Sluggish GDP growth" is a "recession", again, providing that a Republican is in the White House. However, the story that they not doubt follow in their own investing, and are willing to share with investors that will read is that it really isn't all that bad at all.

Other than trying to pin a bit of the Carter hangover on Reagan, they are pretty much right on target. The '70s was the worst economic times that Baby Boomers have seen. Yes, it was far better than the depression, but we are yet to have any 3-term Democrats yet to give us quite the incompetence that a real depression needs to take hold. Carter did amazingly bad in one term, even anything nearly as bad as 9-11 happening. By the MSMs own admission (to investors only!) Bush isn't anything even remotely as bad.

Why I'm Voting Democrat

I think this guy pretty much has it pegged. He could be a bit more anti-gun, but you can't have everything!

I'M VOTING DEMOCRAT BECAUSE….

By Kirk Peterson

I'm voting Democrat because:

I think Cuba and China should be able to drill for oil 50 miles from our shores, but we shouldn't be able to drill for it 100 miles from our shores. I'm worried that some might spill, even though during Katrina not one drop was leaked from over 3200 wells off the shore of Louisiana, or any on-shore storage tanks. It could happen. Maybe.

I think nuclear power is bad even though France (my dream country) gets 80% of its electricity that way, we have 104 plants operating now that have never had a single death associated with them, the fuel is totally renewable, a kilowatt hour can be produced cheaper than any other way, and there are no atmospheric emissions. Okay, that's all good, but the problem is, some company might make money and employ people, and I'm against that.

I think we shouldn't be using oil anyway. We should fly our airplanes with fermented woodchips. Wait a minute…that would mean we have to cut down trees. Okay, no flying.

I think killing unborn, innocent babies is fine, and euthanizing old, sick people is fine, but executing convicted guilty murderers is not. Instead, they should have cable, a gym, a library....

I think we should ignore the fact that adult stem cells are involved in over 90 current cures and treatments, but embryonic stem cells have yet to be effective in even one. It doesn't matter, we need to destroy those embryos.

I think showing my generosity by taking one person's money from him so I can give it to another person who didn't earn it, is better than me giving my own money. I'm really generous with other peoples' money.

I think the government is too small, and we shouldn't let people take care of themselves. They don't really know what's good for them. The government should be making these decisions.

I think that being allowed to keep more of my own money is a disincentive for me to go out and earn more.

I think the top 1% income bracket paying 37% of the taxes isn't enough. And, the top 5% paying over 57% isn't enough. It's not fair that these people get to keep some of their money. They should pay their "fair share" even though I'm not sure what that would be.

I think we should have judges who make up the laws they want, and not be bothered by silly ideas of having elected representatives make laws, or paying attention to what the Constitution actually says, not what they want it to say.

I think being a US citizen shouldn't really mean anything and we should give all our Constitutional rights to anyone who wants them - even our enemies. Oops, I didn't mean we actually have enemies; they're just people we did something to upset, and we just don't understand them correctly.

I think if we just played patty-cake with Admedinejad and got to know him, he wouldn't think we're the Great Satan anymore, and we could be friends. Oh, and I also believed Kim Jong Il when he said they weren't making nukes. After all, Jimmy Carter agreed with him.

I don't think anything is really worth fighting for, especially America, because we're the whole reason there are problems in the world anyway.

I'm not interested in people being free. I just want the French and the UN to like us.

I don't think the laws of supply and demand are real. I think that's all just a big Republican conspiracy.

I'm worried about global warming, even though the Earth has been cooling for 8 years, the south polar ice cap is growing faster than the north pole's ice is shrinking, and there is a direct correlation between the change in the Earth's surface temperature and sun spot activity. That stuff doesn't matter, what matters is we need to get rid of SUVs. Oh, and I also know CO2 is a pollutant, even though it's natural and trees need to ingest it to live. Al Gore's my hero.

I believe that NAFTA is bad, even though all the trading partners have had an enhanced standard of living, unemployment is down in all three countries, and average wages are up. But, the AFL-CIO is against it, so I am too.

I don't think a parent has any business deciding how his child will be educated. This is a job better left to the federal Education Dept. and the teacher's unions.

I don't think anyone should be able to voluntarily put a small bit of his social security into an account that he actually owns and controls. If the -2% return the government is getting you on your social security isn't enough for you, you're just greedy.

I think welfare is great, and if someone doesn't want to work, even though they can, why should we make them? Instead, we can just take someone else's income, and give it to them because it would be cruel to make them work when they don't want to.

I want socialized medicine, because that way everyone gets the same level of care, and so what if you have to wait three years to get your hip replaced. You don't need to walk anyway....you can go on welfare!

I think Bush lied about Iraq even though every intelligence agency in the world said the same thing our CIA did, and all the major Democrats saw the same data and also said the same thing, and they all voted for it. Oh, and we just did it for oil, even though we're still waiting for that cheap oil....

How could you vote Republican? They're mean. I mean, they want old people to die, they want the environment so polluted even they couldn't live in it, and they just want to kill people in wars because they like war so much. This is all good for them because...... uh, because.... because they.... well, it doesn't matter - it's just good for them.

I'm for change, and Obama's for change, and if you're not changing, you're staying the same. And Obama's for the future, and I want to be in the future, because if you aren't in the future, that's just so "now", and I don't want to be "now", I want to be in the future. Oh, and I also want hope, and Obama's for hope, and I hope his hope is hopeful for America. So, I want the hope that in the future there will be change, and that's what Obama says he wants too. (I hope.)

Making the Clinton's Look Good

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama

You have to read the whole thing, a teaser:

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed
by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his
other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any
illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media
swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity
unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight --
switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from
Moscow changed direction.

I'm thinking that BO may in the final analysis make even Jimmy Carter seem like a President that we would have rather had than him.

My Biases

747 pilot rescues farmers from disaster - CNN.com

I've always loved equipment of most any sort- big planes and helicopters are way up there, but allegedly my first word was "tractor". The equipment on our farm wasn't very big, but I still enjoyed that part of farming; it was the cows that I just couldn't stand.

Anything with "747" in the title tends to catch my eye. Rare surprise to see an actual good news article! Think of it, a 747 pilot that probably makes $150K a year going out and helping a farmer in need? What is the world coming to? Aren't those the kinds of greedy evil people that we are supposed to be hammering with all sorts of taxes and regulation? What is wrong with that guy-he must be a really rare exception, most of the folks like him are BAAAD!

Why Does BO Need ANY Campaign Money

Rove, critics try to pin 'arrogant' label on Obama - CNN.com

Tell me again why it is that BO needs any campaign money at all? This is a CNN headline for goodness sake ... "Rove, critics try ...". Uh, is what the MSM calls "news reporting"? What would the difference between that and what BO's vaunted "response team" might do? Is Rove associated with the McCain campaign? The MSM basically never reported the fact that BO came up with his own presidential seal--if they HAD reported it, how might THEY have thought about it? We all know that GWs "smirk" was a sign of HIS arrogance-the MSM was honor bound to let us know the "facts" on that. I'm sure they got maybe 5-10K facial look scientific experts to sign a statement that "yes, that is a very arrogant "smirk"" ... so they were completely justified in reporting the arrogance of that as "proven fact".

We know that it MUST NOT be arrogant for BO to make his own seal, since Karl Rove thinks it is, and we know that Karl Rove is evil and wrong. So what is it? Does his worshipfulness BO make "mistakes"? Seems unlikely. Is it a "brilliant political move"? Is it "serving mankind"? I mean, I KNOW that it has to be good, because we are all in love with BO, but I'm one of those folks that is bitterly clinging to my gun with little in the way of brainpower. How am I supposed to know what to think unless the MSM tells me?

Author of Cathedral and Bazaar on Guns

Eric Raymond, Author or title book which is one of the seminal works of the Open Source software movement has some interesting opinions on gun ownership.

No Right Found?

High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

I fine the MSMs choice of words to be interesting. Usually if there is ruling on abortion, we see headlines like "Court Upholds a Woman's Right to Choose", but in this case, from the POV of the MSM, they are active ... they "struck down" a law. Of course the 4 justices that voted to uphold this law either felt that the constitution needs to tell us it is OK to have an army that carries guns, or more likely, that the "constituion is a living document" and whatever 9 folks in robes think is a good right to make up or strike down ought to be fine with everyone else.

The 2nd amendment is really the ONLY right that counts when it comes right down to it. An unarmed populace is guaranteed to be sheep--Nazi Germain, USSR, China, Cuba, you name it--when they come for your guns it is the very last chance for any rights to remain. Under Saddam, the Iraqis had the right to vote, for some strange reason the vote always came out like 97% for Saddam. The claim may be made that one has "free speech"-- the USSR main paper was "Pravda", or "Truth". The difference between Pravda and the MSM in the US isn't nearly as great as we might think. Today, all the folks at CBS, NBC, NYT, etc with any kind of ability to get a story out would tell you that they are "very free". Of course today, we have Fox News and talk radio, where some of the folks whose views were not tolerated in the MSM outlets actually DO have the right to state their opinion. Passage of the Fairness Doctrine could put an end to that any day.

Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments, yet the high court found a specific right for abortion that states were not allowed to rule on there. The right to bear arms is as explicitly called out as any right in the constitution, yet it took 32 years for a challenge to make it to the Supreme Court, and it passed by a SINGLE VOTE! The MSM would have you believe that what happened here is a fairly arbitrary action and that there is no "right"--at least no right that is like the "right to abortion".

The most clearly delineated personal right in the constitution, and fundamentally the only one that makes the document more than a piece of toilet paper was upheld by a SINGLE VOTE. The old "doomsday clock" that supposedly set a time until we would annihilate ourselves with nukes used to tick perilously close to disaster. Why don't we have a "totalitarian clock"? Alarms ought to be ringing for everyone.

The S&W .22S

By popular demand, a picture.

How Can God Himself "Distort the Bible"?

Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible - CNN.com

Wow, James Dobson is REALLY important, his view of Obama's comments on the Bible is enough to warrant a full headline on CNN online. Is Dobson running for anything? Is he "in bed with the Republicans"? ... Well, if one reads the article, right IN the article it admits that Dobson has indicated that he will NOT vote for McCain. Talk about your "Republican shill".

So why DO you run this as a picture headline on CNN? I guess my question would be: "Why would Obama think that he needs a special staff to deal with "false attacks and rumors", when he obviously has CNN"? (and NPR, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, ....) The reason "why" is pretty obvious, CNN wants to do their best to "defend their guy and demonize ANYONE ... candidate or otherwise that makes any punches that might even have an outside chance of landing.

So what did the MSM deity BO say?

In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to
govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages
suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama
asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests
slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could
go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays
from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical
that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its
application."

What could be wrong with that? I mean, his holiness BO is certainly a noted theologian, right? I mean we ALL know that MANY in the Republican party have been calling for a theocracy where we would govern "solely on the word of the Bible"--nothing alarmist or off the wall there, right? We all know that there hasn't been any Christian theologists in 2K years that have come to any conclusions of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments for Christians, right?

I hesitate to question the great theologion, BO, but I know he will enlighten us in the future on the lack of meaning of Acts 10:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

No doubt Dobson is wrong and BO is right, it is "impossible to decide" between the OT and NT on what one ought to do! I wonder who is more believable on theological topics between BO and the Pope? Guess it would have to be BO, since he obviously trumps St Peter, who was the first Pope!

We are truly blessed to be alive in this time to experience the theological insights of the the great odor ... BO.

A Gun Vault to "Shoot For"

Supposedly the late Charlton Heston's gun vault. Not everyone really "needs" a flamethrower, but if you can't trust Moses with one, who could you trust?

Too Hot for the US Press

Postcard from America: affirmative action gone mad | Janet Albrechtsen Blog | The Australian

I'm sure that 99% of the very few folks that read my Blog are quite certain that I'm completely crackers on any concerns about this "fairness doctrine", which they likely don't even believe ever existed. They really can't be blamed if they read only the MSM, it isn't like the MSM likes to talk about it AT ALL! Why would they? The advent of Talk Radio and Fox news is horrible competition for them. If the Democrats can get rid of any conservative voices, then the MSM market share goes up!

Apparently the Australian Press likes to see a little more "flavor", so are willing to go out on a limb and cover it a bit.

What good is "freedom of the press" if things are arranged so that most folks never even realize even a tiny bit of the diversity of opinion that is out there?

What Is BO Like at a Country Club?

Political Punch

The article is short, the "meat" is:

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per
Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful
date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall
and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

What is interesting is the venom in the ABC reporter writing this and then the SCADS of responses to it (of which I read very few, but "sampled" by scrolling down). What do THEY care what "Karl Rove says?" I don't believe he is working for McCain or the Republicans in any capacity whatsoever this election cycle. In 2006, he lost big and his guys numbers are completely in the toilet. It makes one wonder about folks that are still seething when the game is effectively over for at least this guy.

I suspect that most of these folks are like the help at the country club that is jealous and wants to figure out how to contaminate the food to make the customers sick. NOTE ... I wouldn't even imagine such a thing if not for Barbara Ehrenreich writing in her famous liberal tome "Nickel and Dimed" where she discusses such a sentiment from just WORKING as a housekeeper when she discovers that some folks with a big house have "conservative books". Barbara is of course at lest WAY upper middle class, and I would assume "basic rich" based on her book sales alone.

It takes a special kind of person to have the kind of outrage these people have over what is "less than nothing". This is an idle Rove comment at an event that was supposed to be WAY more "closed" than the BO "Bitterly clinging" event. Are we so low on injustice in the world that idle comments from Karl are worth this much concern from MSM folks and acolyte sheep? Guess so.

Who Needs Democrats?

I'd REALLY like to figure out some way to hold my nose and vote for this guy, but how stupid can one be? There **IS** a "prize" ... it is called PROFITS, and if a company can come out with a battery like that, no doubt if would be worth billions in profits, not some paltry $300 million. To have a suppsed REPUBLICAN that doesn't understand that makes one wonder just how far toward socialism we have really slipped.


McCain plan: $300 million prize for better car battery - CNN.com

Sombody Else Had Better Do it

Op-Ed Columnist - Someone Else’s Alex - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

It is always hard to tell if lefties believe in some perfect world that doesn't exist, or just believe that "somebody else ought to take care of it"--in the end it is pretty much a distinction without a difference. The bottom line is that they can't be counted on to do what needs to be done, only to complain about whatever the current conditions are, and about the people that are producing energy, food, transportation, wealth, health care, and anything else of merit. What the lefties produce best is usually a lot of chattering that when possible to parse can often be made out to be some complaint on one thing or another-and a usually not so thinly veiled threat that SOMEBODY really ought to fix it NOW.

Did I Mention He Is A God?

John J. Pitney Jr. on Barack Obama & Race Card on National Review Online

This is a cute little article, if it wasn't so sad. A few weeks ago BO politely stated "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun", and a few weeks before that, some guy gave him a big stick, and he said that would be what we would "beat the congress with" if they didn't do his bidding. Of course, all of this is completely in "good fun", as it may well be for all I know. The fact that BO has been getting mostly "Are there any questions you would like us to ask Mr Obama?" kind of kid-gloves treatment from BOTH the media and certainly McCain, but he never the less has a "rapid response team" set up to deal with "untruthful attacks", and is constantly on the guard for any "racial subtext". "Subtext" can usually be found pretty well without looking very hard for it ... "bringing a gun" and "beating congress up with a stick", are of course very subtle and no overt messages need to be taken from THOSE!

You Can Take Salem Out of the Country

... but you can't take the country out of Salem! This article reminds me of that old cigarette ad. As some of us who moved to cities of say "50K" 30 years ago and watched the growth of "cultural diversity" and the effects, this isn't exactly "newsworthy", but it IS pretty darned amazing to see someone print the obvious statistics in black and white, and last I checked, The Atalantic wasn't even some wacko far right journal.

Locally, the paper often gets letters to the editor when they print the pictures of the perpetrators of some local stabbing, shooting, murder or drug bust, but I'm thinking that all except the most brilliant on the left can pretty much figure out the name "Mohammad Mustaffa Mohammad" or "James Jefferson Washington" without the photo. Is that racist? My thinking would be that reporting the people that did the crime is just factual. What is racist is someone thinking it can or should be hidden.

So, news at 11, as the improvement in the economy since '80 plus at least some Government programs has allowed inner city folks to move out to smaller cities, a lot of crime has migrated with them. Drum roll -- doing crime has more to do with who you are and what your values are rather than the circumstances of where you are living, income, etc. There may or may not be ways to improve humans, but "U-Haul" doesn't cover it. Seems like one might need a PHD from some pretty dense lefties to think that it would.

My guess is that we are just seeing the VERY early beginnings of this phenomenon. Welcome to the '70s.

American Murder Mystery

S&W .22S

I picked up my first used gun over the weekend, a S&W 5" barrel stainless (matte finish) .22 with a NcSTAR tactical "red dot" that allows me to have 4 projected sight options. Very large composite target wood grip that I REALLY liked the feel of was a major selling point, along with the full length weaver sight mounts.

Took it out to the range today and shot some of the nicest groups I've ever shot at 10 and 20 yards. The above was from 10 yards on sandbags ... just trying to see how well the GUN could do. I just forgot to put 3 in the middle and upper right I put 2 through essentially the same hole.

I'm enjoying a lot of this whole handgun experience, but I can only stand so many loud bangs with recoil. The old .22 is hard to beat for fun. I would have definitely went with the Ruger MK III hunter in SS with the fluted bull barrel if I didn't have two buddies that have that exact gun. Ruger makes one of those with a bigger grip I think that I might like just as well or better, but part of the fun of shooting is to have some different things to shoot, and it doesn't seem likely that I can really have ALL of the potentials in my own stable. Therefore, I felt a bit of a "group responsibility", coupled with the desire to add a Smith and Wesson to my stable. I already have the SP 100 Ruger .357.

I suspect there will be a lot of fun rounds put through this little gem.

Great Seal of BO

For the latin challenged "Vero Possumus" means "Verified Possum".

Well, not actually, it means "Truely we are able" or basically, "Yes We Can". This is of course a really good idea because all the brilliant democrats are up on their latin and instantly see the meaning in all this, while the idiot red-state Republicans are just going to be mystified by the power of this symbol and think "gee, what does this remind me of"?

Oh, wait, the Presidential seal. Upon further review though, you realize that the BO seal has 57 stars (+2). The nice thing about BO is his HUMILITY! Did you know that Bush has a "smirk"? BO is just a humble guy, that is hugely in his favor.

I Can't Exonerate Hillary in Foster Case

Here is a remarkable CNN headline. Current book salesman, ex-fired White House spokesman Scott McClellen "can't exonerate Cheney". Uh, Duh? What is the difference between "I don't have any information" and "I can't exonerate" rather than the implication of guilt? This is a HEADLINE? Absence of proof of INNOCENCE is now news? I would ASSUME it is true that not even THE OBAMA could "exonerate Saddam from having had WMDs" -- even though the media would have us believe that "fact' is a metaphysical certainty. What kind of evidence would it take to "exonerate" someone from something like a leak? It isn't one of those things like a murder that HAS to happen at a single point in time, so therefore if you have proof that a suspect was someplace else, you may be able to "exonerate them".

What level of bias does one need to print that as a headline? It is hard to even fathom, given that it is both ridiculous and biased beyond belief.

BTW, for those that exist in some alternate universe, the "Plame Affair" is WAY over ... the grand jury packed up, the "perpetrator" that let us know that a lady that drove from her suburban Washington home to CIA headquarters during the work week actually ... drum role! ... WORKED AT THE CIA!!! His name is Richard Armitage and there is a lot of coverage of his admissions on this point, including in this blog .

At the end of the Clinton years, we were treated to constant articles of "Move On!" relative to the scandals, and MoveOn.org was even founded on the horror of Republicans and "the conservative echo chamber" keeping useless stories about the Clintons alive. Here we see a headline on CNN with the Democrats locked in hearings on an affair that has been over for YEARS, and was concluded with no prosecuti0ns at all other than a trumped up perjury charge that we KNOW has nothing to do with the actual subject of the investigation, since we KNOW who the "leaker" was.

So what was all that stuff about "focus on important issues rather than scandal"? Is something different now?

Branding BO

Power Line: A messiah flush with cash

The utterly ignored fact is that BO is now the first presidential candidate since '76 to not take federal campaign financing, and he is thus completely unregulated. While I've personally always thought that campaign finance laws were unconstitutional and a restriction of the very speech that our constitution was most designed to protect and encourage, the MSM has always had the opposite view-at least as long as they saw Republicans generally raising more money than Democrats.

I often note the "looking glass" effect where the MSM and Democrats see what THEY either have been doing or dearly want to do, and get HORRIBLY concerned if Republicans are able to impletement even a tiny bit of a Democrat approach. The outcry of the "Republican media / fundraising / strategy machine" ... both during the '80s with Reagan, and then with horrible howling from 2K through the Bush years has been an example.

Well, post Katrina, the "empire has struck back". By demonization of Bush/Cheney as well as the Republican congress with "lies, incompetence, arrogance, unpopular, out of touch, ..." becoming synonymous with "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove" and finally "Republicans" has broken the brand. Unwittingly, even the right wing of the Republican party helped out as from their POV, Bush was WAY too far to the middle of the road. The Republican Brand has been damaged WAY more than the term "liberal" EVER has been (and remember the crocodile tears from the left when ANYONE was "forced to run away from the term liberal".

So why does BO think he needs 100s of millions of cash for the election? He can already blanket the airwaves between now and the conventions at something like a 3x+ advantage over poor McCain with his 527s like MoveOn helping him every step of the way, the standard and even accelerated MSM Democrat assistance, and of course NO PROBLEMS with any charges from the MSM of him "buying an election" or "the corrupting power of money in elections". He was already in the cat birds seat, and at least one level this seems like a little more risk than he really had to take. (all be it low as we can see -- campaign finance reform is really only about "limiting what the Republicans can spend").

In BOs first election, he managed to get both of the other Democrats that would have run against him in the primary out on technicalities so he could run unopposed in the only election that mattered in his completely out to lunch Democrat district. Like most liberals, BO is no fan of Democracy--only power for himself. I mean when you are the Messiah, why should you submit to a vote? You are already convinced that you have all the answers and that were you to be defeated it would just be worse for "the deserving".

I think the election of Reagan, and then to an even greater extent GW Bush has convinced the Democrats / MSM that it is time for "drastic measures". In their view they can NEVER go back to that short period when the Republicans held the WH, House, and a slim lead in the Senate, even though they were able to pretty much stop what they wanted with a Filibuster. The 100's of millions is to get the Democrats a Fillibuster proof Senate, and make a whole set of changes so that they never lose their power again. My best guess at things on their agenda:

- Bring back "fairness legislation" so that the political content of all media outlets is under control of the federal government as it was prior to '87.
- Control Christian religious expression through "hate speech laws", controls on public display of Christian symbols (even on private property if "visible" to those that they may "offend"), removal of tax exemptions for Christian organizations, etc.
- Taxation of "wealth" as opposed to income for "certain types of people". Financial discrimination is of course at the core of left wing fascist control over the population. They may SAY "equality" every other word, but when it comes to the bottom line, it suddenly gets transmuted to "fairness", and they decide what "fair" means. There is a lot of 401K money out there that could both help fund a lot of vote buying that they want to do and penalize a lot of folks that saved money for decades. Thrift and personal responsibility are high on the list of things that Democrats can't stomach, and the 401K, created under Reagan is the kind of thing that if allowed to stand reduces dependency on the Government. Need to have only dependent sheep ... NO SHEEPDOGS!
- Naturally, an armed populace is just not nearly as docile as a fascist like BO needs. They have a lot of "turn in your neighbor" kinds of proposals. Massive taxation and removal from sale of ammunition -- the list goes on. At least in the short term, there is some potential that the Supreme Court could hold the line on this one, but don't expect it to last for long.

BO has a tremendous shot at moving this country completely into a government controlled media message only, 100% government dependent (healthcare, retirement, what job you can get unless you follow the proscribed speech), effectively state controlled religious message, unarmed populace.

Is this alarmist? Oh, certainly, but WAY less alarmist than 40 front page stories on Abu Girab in the NYT, thousands of articles on "loss of rights" because someone MIGHT be listening to your cell call if you happen to have any known foreign terrorists on speed dial and I won't even go into all the braying about "the Christian right peering into your bedroom". We have an MSM tradition of alarmism in this country, but it only goes one way. If our politics gets close to the centerline, as it did in Bush and Reagan, the MSM believes that we have fallen into some imaginary Nazi right ditch. From their POV, this is a highway with no such thing as a left ditch. We are about to hang a hard left at 80 with no intersection in sight, and from the MSM POV, it is unimaginable that there could even be the hint of a concern with that.

Ignore What I Write, READ THIS!

PJ is one of my favorite writers. Being funny AND making a ton of sense while doing it is very hard to beat. This guy is one of my standards, and from reading this one it is obvious that I have a LONG way to go!

BO Makes Campaign Finance History

Obama bypasses public money — 1st since Watergate - Yahoo! News

Things have REALLY changed since 2000! In 2K, the "Bush Money Machine", and "Big Campaign Money" were a "threat to America", and the media was all over that horrible Bush for "buying the election". What made Bush specially bad (other than raising more funds than their cherished Democrats)? Well, the cad opted out of Federal financing for PRIMAIRIES. Wow, that was horrible! That meant that he used his money advantage against (among others), John McCain! Remember when the media LOVED that "maverick" McCain? My how times have changed!

Of course in those distant times the MSM LOVED "McCain/Feingold", that bold step forward, great thing that everyone ought to be in favor of. Have any guesses about how big a story this is going to be?

Last year, Obama filled out a questionnaire where he vowed to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." But since clinching the Democratic nomination earlier this month, Obama has not broached the subject with McCain. The only discussion occurred about two weeks ago between Obama's and McCain's lawyers,

How many times have we heard media say "Bush lied" in the last 5 years? I wonder how many times we will see this Obama move referred to as a "lie"? We need to get whole new definitions. When Bush said that "British Intelligence said that Saddam was seeking yellowcake", British intelligence confirmed it, and a British investigation approved the intelligence, but the American media decided "No, Saddam didn't do that", THAT was declared as a "Bush LIE". When Bush said that Saddam had WMDs, the CIA said he had WMDs, the Clinton administration historically and every world power including the UN said that he had WMDs, but WMDs were not found in sufficient quantities (only components buried under school yards, older shells with sarin, etc), that meant that "Bush lied".

One can only assume that for a Republican, the definition of "a lie" is "a statement that you make that disagrees with the media view". I await what the definition might be for Obama? I'm thinking that it is metaphysically impossible for him to state something that is less than truthful from the media perspective. I'll await their verdict. "Truth" was such a HUGE issue just a short time ago, but my sense is that the standards may have suddenly gotten murkier? I argue that the MSM capabilty to convince many Americans that are in the middle that actually DO believe that "character is an issue" that "Bush lied" is a MAJOR coup on their part and has a giant effect in creating his low popularity and the Democrat takeover in Congress.

Note the words of the other "saint of campaign finance".

Russ Feingold,a Wisconsin Democrat who has worked with McCain on campaign finance laws in the past, praised Obama for his support of current campaign finance legislation, but added: "This decision was a mistake."

Now there is your courageous non-partisan guy. I'm sure Russ will be trumpeting this scathing "This decision was a mistake" rhetoric from shore to shore. Here we have an example of "principled courage in politics". Mind you, since his name is on the "historic legislation", I guess one should be unsurprised how he REALLY gets out there on this one! No room for cynicism in US politics these days!

Then we have this sterling example of the BO "new kind of politics":

Obama said McCain and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

"And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," Obama said. 

Despite that claim, few Republican-leaning groups have weighed into the presidential contest so far. In fact, Obama allies such as MoveOn.org are the ones that have been spending money on advertising against McCain.

Wow, even the AP can't quite fully stomach the "audacity" of that one. It is McCain and the Republican's fault that BO has to break his word? BUT, even the MSM (all be it WAY at the end of the article) is forced to recognize that the BO claim is a complete lie, and it is HIM that is benefiting from the "so-called 527 groups".

Yes, this is really a "new kind of politics".

No Favor to be "VIP"

Friends in high places - Opinion - USATODAY.com

Hmm, couple SITTING Senators, one of them on the list of potential VP nominees ... OOPs, my mistake, BOTH DEMOCRATS! They "gave the money back", and didn't see "being treated as a VIP" as "special". BO doesn't see picking up something over $500K in benefits from a now convicted felon as a "favor" -- and of course, he didn't even bother to "give it back".

No reason to make these into news stories ... or to talk about "corruption in the Democrat party". Those were the tactics used successfully during the 2006 election by the MSM to do a solid job of damaging the Republican brand. The difficulty though is that most REPUBLICANS respond badly to their candidates being crooks. Democrats on the other hand are picking their guys explicitly because they are crooks!! They EXPECT that their guys are going to rip off all sorts of funds from a whole bunch of folks, they are just going to get a lot of lawyers involved and call it "progressive taxation"!

Addition Update

The sheetrock is up in the new bedroom. Here are some updated pictures.

Master Bedroom Addition

Ships At Duluth Canal

On our trip north we got a chance to watch a few ships go through the canal into the Duluth/Superior Harbor under the lift bridge.

Ships Through Duluth Canal

.

BO On FICA

Power Line: Obama on Social Security

Being popular and having any relationship to reality are often at odds, and that is the core of the BO dilema here. On one hand, he wants to tell folks making less than $100K that "it isn't fair" that they have to pay FICA on all their income. On the other hand, he doesn't want to tell the bulk of his supporters, from $100K - $250K that they are going to have to have a 15% tax increase. A much larger percentage of people that make over $100K see through the fiction that "the employer pays half", just like a larger percentage of those people see through the idea that you can "tax corporations". Corporations only exist to make profits, if government chooses to raise the cost of doing business by adding corporate taxes, then the company passes along that cost to consumers. If the addition of that cost causes the product to be noncompetitive against foreign competition or on the basis of price, then the corporation will stop making it.

Likewise, every employee of a corporation has to earn the cost of employing them PLUS profits. If government chooses to increase the cost of employing them by adding further taxation, then that is just less money for the employee.

Why is it legitimate to have a cap on the earnings for FICA? Easy, there is a cap on the benefits. FICA wasn't SUPPOSED to be "alms for the poor", it was to be a safety net for EVERYONE. BO ignores that fact, as he ignores the fact that Buffet's wealth comes from capital gains, not salary at all, so Buffet pays ZERO FICA, not some tiny percentage. At least in this lunatic installment, BO isn't espousing FICA on capital gains, so any discussion of Buffett is either lying or lack of understanding, depending on what is in his head. This is a tough one for BO though. If he is the completely moral genius that the press would have us believe, then wouldn't he HAVE to understand the way FICA works? But on the other hand, is it OK for "The Obama" to not be truthful? I'm sure the press will be helping us understand this important dilema in the future.

In likewise impenetrable duplicity, BO criticizes Bush for "privatization foolishness", but laments how low the savings rate is for Americans and rolls out his idea that what he is proposing ... TA DA, Drum Roll please, is a private savings plan for citizens! No doubt some of his advisors will have to explain to him that a low savings rate is GOOD for Democrats. They WANT to have as many folks dependent on the government as possible, and the LAST thing they want to have is anything like an "investment society", where most Americans are invested in business and the economy and would have an interest in seeing through the kind of shell game that BO is pushing. INVESTMENT means putting your money in something that is going to produce a PROFIT, and thus GROW! No profits mean no taxes, no savings growth, no economic growth and in very short order; depression, hunger and death.

Maybe the stench of decay is just "longer term BO"?

Bluefin Bay

Sitting in a second story condo at Bluefin Bay on the North Shore of Lake Superior looking at a serene lake with some clouds rolling in. I love the ocean, but the ocean is too violent to build beautiful condos 25 yards from the waters edge, even if they are built on solid rock. The sound of the ocean surf is nice, but the lapping of the Superior "mini-surf" floating up to the room is just perfect for a Monday AM that bears no resemblence to 99% of the Mondays for one having just hit 30 years in a corporate career. I'm not going to bother to check my e-mail this particular day.

Yesterday was our 23rd anniversary, and we drove up from the Superior Shores hotel that we had spent a couple nights at in Canal Park there. Saturday was the "ultimate perfect June day" my wife and I both agreed, and we rode our bikes north on the lake shore bike trail to tour Glensheen, the Congden mansion. The day was the 100th anniversary of Glensheen, it having been completed in 1908. I was struck with the inclusion of electric lights, an intercom system and a servant call system that had little indicators that clicked to the room where a servant was needed when a button was pressed. It was interesting to see that our master bedrom complex will exceed the Congden's, who were the richest family in Minnesota in 1908, and we wouldn't rate in the top 100K in 2008.

That theme is what struck me about the mansion. In 1908, the real difference that wealth provided was that of servants, and it was the servants and education that made the Congden's a different "class". Technology has replaced those servants, and mass production has expanded the accessibility of all manner of conveinience to ever wider swaths of the population. We have not conquered envy, many still waste their precious mental cyles worried about what it is that someone else may have, but progress has expanded the amount of wealth available in aggregate, heavily leveraged the capabilities of that wealth (cars, computers, home appliances) and made the key advantages (education) available to all. We have had a lot of success in 100 years, why do I suspect that we sit on the cusp of throwing away a significant amount of that success? I certainly hope that I am wrong.

On our way north we vowed to stop at all the falls available since the water flow is at historic highs. A few years ago when we were up here, the drought was in full swing and the DNR had helpful little pamphlets explaining how that was due to Global Warming. I'm sure that the historic highs are due to "Climate Change", and they just haven't gotten the pamphlets printed yet. I'm always interested in having the Government give me the proper political view on water levels.

All the falls at Gooseberry were thundering with the most water at least we had seen over our years of coming up here, including the summer before our engagement 24 years ago. We then stopped at Palisade Head, a spot that most pass by, which is good, since it has a very narrow little road to the top, and is mostly visited by rock climbers. It is a great spot to experience the 100+ foot sheer rock cliffs that are occasionally in evidence on the North Shore, and Sunday was a great day to do that with the lake generally calm and light breezes.

We next stopped at Tettegouche park on the Baptism River and went up to hike to the 60' upper falls. The hike in went well, with the only problem being a number of muddy spots on the trail that needed to be snuck around. The falls was beautiful and roaring, and the cable bridge over the river above the falls was exciting. On the opposite side of the river though we made the mistake of thinking that there was a bridge at the lower falls. We hiked down to that, including the 100+ steps down to river level, and discovered that there was an important feature missing-no bridge. So, we had a lot of "up" for our hike back to the vehicle, and althought I do a lot of stairmonster for excercise, it really isn't the same as the real thing. Upon arrival at the car we decided that the jacuzzi at Bluefin sounded really nice, so we headed north, skipping Temperance River for one of our remaining two days.

The evening at Bluefin in no way disappointed. The suites here with their fireplaces and jacuzzi tubs probably gave us too much inspiration for our new master suite, and staying here while we are stuffed into our son's bedroom at home sharing a bath with the boys makes us even more anxious for the new setup to be completed. We aren't likely to have a restraunt like the Bluefin Grill in walking distance down a beaufiful boardwalk with Lake Superior beside us at our home however, unless virtual reality really moves along at a rapid pace. We had a baked brie with roasted apples and french bread for an appetizer that was to die for, and the New York strip done with some wondrous garlic sauce and beautiful Yukon Gold garlic mashed potatoes certainly more than undid any health benefits of the hike!

I'm going to have to work on the right kind of wave lapping sounds to see if I can't have something fun to wake up to in the new bedroom. The effect of looking out on the expanse of Superior isn't going to be possible to duplicate however.

Russert "Loving the Election"

"He Was Loving This Election" - TIME

Joe Klein, an unabashedly liberal commentator from Time, had one argument with Russert over the years. He treated the Clinton's too harshly. Wow. This is about the third time I've seen the "loving this election", and I think we all know why, Russert was excited about seeing Obama elected.

I don't know how Russert squared his Catholic Christianity with his political party's Abortion on Demand and Gay Marriage, but somehow he did. It is unreasonable to expect any political party to come close to agreeing with our views on anything close to everything. We all are going to live with some level of "cognitive dissonance" given that there are only 2 real choices.

Russert would certainly have been one of the top figures in the MSM. I'm struck with the similarities and differences with Buckley's passing. The loss of Buckley was of course way less tragic, he was older, it was expected. There was no secret as to where Buckley stood on ideas, and the media and politicians treated his death in the way they thought was "accordingly" ... "the conservatives lost a great ...".

Certainly every story about Russert that we read, including this one, tells us who he was, and of course it isn't as if we didn't already know that. He proudly worked for Cuomo and Moynihan, Dad, "Big Russ" a retired city employee, still very close, still mostly see eye to eye. This is "the old America", the "pre Reagan America" that the MSM and the left sees as the way things ought to be. "Everyone can agree" -- it is an America from their point of view where there really ought to be "no sides" on anything of merit. "Everyone agrees that Uncle Walter Cronkite is telling the truth". To suggest that Uncle Walter or Tim Russert might be just regular humans with normal human biases has somehow beccome inherently evil, it is the "politics of division", and it is high time we put that behind us.

When was it that actual diversity of thought became somehow wrong? Is that really what America is supposed to be? Diversity of race and behavior, but no diversity of thought? What is it that somehow makes is wrong to celebrate the life of Bill Buckley as "one of them" and for the MSM to celebrate the life of Tim Russert as "one of us" from the point of view of the "liberal elite, MSM, Democrat view"? Isn't that what he was? As MSM spokesman go, I'd certainly rather have had Russert have a lot longer career than Dan Rather. Even though Russert actually worked for Democrats, my belief has always been that he would be less likely than Rather to actually fake documents or use other methods to try to make the news come out his way.

"If Fascism comes to America, it will be called Americanism". If it comes to America, it will DEFINITELY come from the "dominant culture". That is what fascism is, the dominant culture politicising life to the point where holding views other than those dominant views is either actually or defacto criminal. If you don't agree with gays being married, that is "hate speech"--you can lose your job, or potentially be incarcerated if you make your thoughts known. We are on the path to make global warming a similar thought issue. I have no idea how long the list will become, can anyone be allowed to be against "hope" or "change"?

At his core I think Russert prided himself in being "one of the folks, down to earth, for the common man". Those are all good feelings, but they can also be dangerous. Our founding fathers had a solid understanding of the "tyranny of the majority", and realized that it was hard to the masses to realize that all progress depends on the "UNcommon man".

Russert was well loved by the "standard MSM" and many of the common folks. As MSM types go, I think he at least gave it his best shot to ask tough questions on both sides of the isle from time to time, but it was always clear where his heart was as well. In my book, that is fine, the only problem is when the dominant culture claims that their view is "truth", rather than just "their view".

How Faint Can one Be?

Progress in Iraq...and What To Do About It - Swampland - TIME

Even Time magazine is forced to recognize progress in Iraq. They have no idea why of course--can't be any credit to to Bush for example. Sort of one of those "mysteries of the left". Naturally, the war was still a huge mistake, so those Iraqis were MUCH better off being butchered by Saddam No doubt Joe hasn't noticed the massive reduction in suicide bombers in Israel since Saddam stopped paying the families of the bombers $30K either. Well, nobody would be so callous to blow themselves up for money, so THAT must be due to some mysterious reason not associated with any Bush policy as well.

Candidate on Far Left

Old but nice picture. Could probably win him points as "Candidate of the Far Left". Note, it is OUR far left ... from his perspective, he thinks he is on the right! Why? Well, he STOOD for the National Anthem of a racist, violent, corporatist, global pariah state didn't he? For at least those friends of his that are ex-Weathermen bombers, standing up like that is pretty radical even if you don't put your hand over your heart!

Maybe He Should Check With Pluto

Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution - CNN.com

Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Pluto and the outer planets seeks to impeach both Bush and Cheney. I imagine if he could be successful, he would start on any other elected Republican officials. Potentially in the end, we may be ruled by Zok, laser ray dragon and receive our orders for happiness direct from mind satellites controlled by chief Dennis wearing his best tinfoil hat.

The Democrats are such a practical and unifying force. The scary part is that they seem humorous with just short observance-but Dennis would like to get rid of conservative media, register bloggers and who knows what else. He actually is serious, and down his path everyone eventually only has one choice, and they better like it or they will need some "retraining".

Troop Suicides and BO

Thomas Sowell is often the voice of reason. I have seen the media talk of "increases in troop suicides", giving one the impression that there must be a significant suicide problem in the military. Certainly, ANY suicide rate is too high, but when we discover that they in-theater and at home rates are LESS than the rates for the general population in the same age group, isn't it just a BIT disengenupous for the MSM to be trumpeting the "suicide problem in the military"? NPR had at least one hour long special on it for example.

Sowell is a black man that also sees that same sort of "Cocky Ignorance" in BO that I do. It is often the case that those that are in many ways the smartest are the most ignorant of all--sort of another version of the rich; "the can afford to be".


RealClearPolitics - Articles - Cocky Ignorance

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.