Mr. Gore Goes to Washington

Former Vice President, unsuccessful Democrat candidate for President, moviemaker, Academy Award winner, Nobel Prize nominee, and global warming “obsessionite” Al Gore is testifying in Congress today about his passion: Manmade global warming. Before Mr. Gore had uttered even the first of his many predictable words, this episode was already collecting irregularities.

Witnesses are expected to submit their remarks at least 48 hours prior to their time before a committee to allow committee members adequate time to review the testimony and prepare meaningful and well thought out questions for the witness. Mr. Gore missed the deadline; his testimony reportedly arrived at 1 a.m.—yes, that is a.m.—the day of his appearance. Obviously, this leaves little time for supporters and opponents of Mr. Gore’s theory to do their jobs properly.

Hmmm.

Mr. Gore was scheduled to appear at 8:30, but reportedly did not arrive until approximately 9:30.

Hmmmmmmm.

Further, Mr. Gore refused to listen Republican members’ opening statements, which perhaps explains his AWOL status for an hour.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

My opinion is that it is reasonable to ask witnesses to meet the 48-hour rule for submitting testimony, that it is reasonable to expect witnesses to arrive on time, and it is reasonable to expect witnesses to listen to all opening statements. Anyone disagree with that?

I didn’t think so.

So why is Al Gore allowed to set his own rules? Is it possible that Mr. Gore is getting favored treatment by his Democrat buddies?

And one more question: When his testimony is concluded and members begin asking questions, will all members be treated fairly and equally in time allotments for their questions?

Given the highly irregular nature of the early parts of this episode, I won’t be surprised if the irregularities continue.

Technorati Tags: Congress, Environment, Democrats, Fairness

On Being a Greedy Business Owner

I know at least one of my regular visitors has owned his own business, as I did. There is the perception that people who own businesses are rich and greedy folks who take advantage of their employees so they can grow rich. It is an interesting perception, and certainly provides a wonderful platform for critics of capitalism to rant and whine.

Here is a story about a guy who ran a small ranch in Kansas:

It seems the Kansas Wage & Hour Dept. believed he was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an field agent out to interview him.

"I want to know who your employees are and how much you pay them," the agent demanded.

"Well," replied the rancher, "There's my ranch hand, Albert, who's been with me for 3 years. I pay him $600 a week plus free room and board.

The cook, Josephine, has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $500 per week plus free room and board.

Then there's the half-wit who works about 18 hours every day of the week and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes about $10 per week, pays his own room and board and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night."

"That's the guy I want to talk to, the half-wit," said the and hostile state agent.

"That would be me," replied the rancher.

Life is always sweet when you own your own business, eh, Buff?

Technorati Tags: America, Small Business, Capitalism, Greed

Muslims Often Create Their Own Problems

Item I - Muslim cashiers at some Minneapolis Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions. Some Muslim cashiers had declined to scan products such as bacon because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. They would ask other cashiers to ring up such purchases, or some customers scanned the items themselves.

Item II - Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia have refused to transport customers in Minneapolis carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. It started with one driver a few years ago, but the average number of fare refusals has grown to about three a day, a spokesman said. "Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," he says. "Sometimes, several drivers in a row refuse carriage."

Item III - Six Muslim imams who were forcibly removed from a US Airways flight last year and are now suing the airline for discrimination may also be suing some passengers who were aboard the flight. In the lawsuit filed last week, the imams say that unnamed "John Doe" passengers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reported that they engaged in "suspicious" behavior — praying in the terminal — before they boarded the plane on Nov. 20.

One might be tempted to ask, “What is going on in Minneapolis?” But that is the wrong question; these problems are not of Minneapolis’ making.

One of the many great things about the United States is our recognition and protection of personal freedoms, and those include the freedom to worship as one chooses, or to not worship at all. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Muslims, theists and atheists alike have the same rights in this regard; they are free to follow their beliefs, so long as they don’t break laws. So, what’s the problem?

Muslims don’t have to give a ride to someone carrying items that are prohibited by their religion, or to sell such items to someone. Muslims have the right to pray whenever and wherever they please (except, one would guess, in public schools). This is not about what rights Muslims have in the United States. To paraphrase the Captain (Strother Martin) in “Cool Hand Luke,” “What we have here is … failure to integrate.” What Muslims must do is to determine how our society functions, and then figure out how to fit into it. If Muslims don’t want to take all customers that want a cab ride, don’t be a taxi driver. If Muslims don’t want ring up all the products their employer’s customers want to purchase, don’t be a checkout clerk. If Muslims don’t want to be singled out and embarrassed or inconvenienced, then don’t do things that in the United States are considered unusual and suspicious in airports and on airplanes.

Attention Muslims in the United States: This is not rocket science, folks. It is your obligation to adapt to our culture, not our obligation to adapt our culture to suit you.

You have two choices: Learn to fit in, or go somewhere else.

Technorati Tags: Culture, Religion, Islam, Immigration

Blogger's Surprise

I had an interesting thing happen yesterday. At least it was interesting to me. I was surfing some new blogs and came across one--don't remember which one--that was expressing a measure of surprise and pride at its jump in the Technorati blog ratings level. The blog author was very pleased that her or his blog had made it into the top 100,000 blogs that Technorati rates. The piece pointed out that given the millions of blogs in existence that being in the top 100,000 is pretty noteworthy.

That reminded me that a blog I regularly visit, that of Kashmiri Nomad, had also referenced the Technorati rating. I have used Technorati tags off and on during my blogging "career," and I have seen the rating when I visit the Technorati site to ascertain whether it has responed to my update ping, but I hadn't ever given it much thought because my rating wasn't what I thought of as especially good. And since I lack the talent and am unable to devote the kind of time to Observations that is required to make it one of the widest read blogs, I really didn't pay much attention.

Researching the Technorati site revealed the fact that the service tracks more that 71 million blogs!!! Wow! I figured it only tracked a few million, those that were registered or that used the tag system. So, purely out of curiosity I took a look at my Technorati rating. Yesterday, it was 17,134! What a surprise!

Now, don't get me wrong: I realize that having the 17,134th highest rated blog isn't at all special, but I certainly was amazed that my humble and relatively sparsely read effort was even that high. I don't know how often Technorati re-rates blogs, but I have noticed that the rating fluctuates during the day. At one point, Observations was at 17,092, and today it's at 17,139.

So, check out Technorati to see where you are. You might be surprised, too.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, Technorati, Blogs

Republican's Behavior Embarrassing

I am quick to tell people who assume that because I am conservative that I am a Republican. Not so. I claim allegiance to no political party; none of them make the grade in my book. I will qualify the foregoing by saying that I am strongly, undeniably, definitely, adamantly and uncompromisingly not a Democrat.

I do, however, align myself with Republicans when they are right, or when they are more right than the Democrats, which is nearly all the time. To do otherwise would be stupid.

But today is not one of those times. The Republicans—the GOP, the party that took control of Congress back from the Democrats after 40 years of exile in the wilderness of minority status, the party of Ronald Reagan, the party that held both the White House and the Congress during George Bush’s first six years—have evolved into Wusses of the first order (Yes, that’s a capital “W”). And the Wus in Chief is none other than George Bush.

Mr. Bush, imperfect as he (and the rest of us) is, gained my admiration for his ability to not be swayed from what he thought was the right course. GW doesn’t put his finger in the wind to figure which way to go. He sticks to his belief that the war against terror is important, despite the liberals and Democrats apparent failure to notice that terrorism is our greatest threat. He sticks to his belief that Iraq is the primary battlefield in that war, despite tremendous public opinion to the contrary, and a gaggle of Democrats in Congress determined to undermine the administration's policy, notwithstanding the horrible negative consequences of doing so. And while I dramatically disagree with his position, he has stuck to his guns on the border issue. But more recent developments show Mr. Bush to be weak-kneed and cowering against the Democrat’s political assaults.

He allowed the Democrats to carry the day in their manic drive to drive out Donald Rumsfeld, barely putting up any resistance after the election. That was bad for two reasons. If he was going to shove Mr. Rumsfeld overboard, why didn’t he do it before the election when it might have made a difference? And second, now that the Democrats have smelled blood in the water, they are after another scalp.

And now, he’s allowing the Democrats to create a tempest in a teapot over the firing of eight federal prosecutors, something he is constitutionally authorized to do at any time for any reason. He doesn’t need to explain anything to anyone. He doesn’t need to send his aides to testify before Congressional committees. He doesn’t need to scapegoat Alberto Gonzales. He needs to quit waving the white flag, stand up and behave like the President of the United States, and tell Congress to quit wasting everyone’s time on this non-issue and get back to work on important things.

The Republicans in Congress are little better. Where’s the support for their president? Some of them have even gone over to the other side on this issue, either not realizing that there is no “there” there, or being more concerned for their own sorry hide than for what’s right.

The Republicans are often their own worst enemy, losing battles not because they are wrong, but because they are afraid to be right.

Technorati Tags: Republicans, Politics, Congress, George Bush

More “Much Ado About Nothing”

From Congressional Democrats

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is under fire for the way the Justice Department handled the firing of eight federal prosecutors. From all the whining, stamping of feet and gnashing of teeth from Democrats, you might think it is a big deal. It's not.

Here’s the way it is, folks: U.S. Attorneys serve at the will and pleasure of the President of the United States; he can dismiss them for any—ANY—reason, or for no reason at all. ANY reason or NO reason.

Period.

End of story.

So, it doesn’t matter if the prosecutors were fired because the White House didn’t like who they were or were not prosecuting. It doesn’t matter if the firings were discussed for two or three years prior to their dismissal. It doesn’t matter if Harry Reid, or Charles Schumer or anyone else doesn’t approve of what was done or how it was done. Desperate for material, the Democrats charge that the dismissals were politically motivated. Well, duh! That demonstrates only that Democrats have a grasp of the obvious: Being a U.S. Attorney is a political job. And if you have any doubt of any of the preceding, review the firing of all 93 federal prosecutors by the Clinton administration

Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno gave them 10 days to move out of their offices. All at once. Not eight. Ninety-three. Did I mention that Ms. Reno fired them all at the same time?

The glib Mr. Clinton, who was always believed by the media and his base, presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." No one questioned that.

In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition, as the action of Mr. Bush’s administration has done. Wonder why no one is talking about that?

Because that is a losing argument, that’s why. And the Democrats can’t afford to let that happen, and the media isn’t going to let that happen, either, so they try to shift the focus to silly details that really don’t matter, and try to blow them all out of proportion to distract our attention from truly important matters, such as the Islamic terrorism threat.

And if it’s the politics that bothers you, consider this: At the time Janet Reno cleaned house, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was about to make a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was pushing the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton. Hmmm.

Mr. Gonzales biggest sin, if there is one, is that he told Congress that he would do things one way, and then did things another way. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Naughty boy, Alberto. But the administration is the administration and the Congress is the Congress, and they are co-equal. The administration does not have to get approval from the Congress to run the country; that’s its job.

Summed up, this hasn’t been a pretty thing, but “ugly” isn’t criminal, and politics is politics, and this episode doesn’t warrant the Attorney General’s hide. What is warranted is a little guts from the administration to stand up and tell people to sit down and shut up!

Technorati Tags: America, Politics, Congress, Alberto Gonzales

A Graphic Perspective on Illegal Immigration

The level of absurdity on the pro-illegal-alien side of the argument is clearly baffling. Common sense has taken a holiday, as Americans who ought to know better defend people who enter our country illegally—another word for people who break laws is “criminal”—and avail themselves of all manner of benefits and services that are, or should be, limited only to citizens.

Below is a perspective on illegal immigration that might help folks see the issue clearly. Or maybe not.

It is not original with me, and in fact I have no idea who wrote it. But it’s pretty effective.

Let's Say I Break Into Your House

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hardworking and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters, you are required to let me stay in your house You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan You are required to educate my kids You are required to provide other benefits to me & to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in thingy).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hardworking and honest, person, except for …well, you know, the crime I committed when I broke into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college. (Such a deal!)

And what a deal it is for me!!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. (Is this a great country, or what?)

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that YOU LEARN MY language so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MY language, too; I need to be able to understand them.

Technorati Tags: America, Illegal Immigration, Culture, Political Corrections

A Little Housekeeping

Sharp-eyed readers will notice a change in the blog list titled "Sites I Visit" under the link to Lord Nazh's site. It is Brad's new site, following his decision to stop publishing "What Middle America Thinks."

Stop by and leave a comment.

Democrats Before It Became
Convenient to Deny Iraqi WMDs

Thanks to #1 Son, Ryan.

Seeing Clearly from Across the Pond

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, wrote a blistering attack on November 20, 2004 in Die Welt, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. History may well certify its correctness.

Europe: Thy Name is Cowardice
Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time."

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation," but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans," as the World Champions of "tolerance," which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive."

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Thanks to The Windjammer for bringing this to my attention.

Home Again!

Well, it was a good trip, all in all. Not without its difficulties and irritations, but good.

Now it's over, and that's good, too. As Buffalo says, "It's all good."

---

New Blog For You To Visit

I'd like to call attention to Winfred Mann's new blog, "A Comment or Two," and encourage you to visit. He has been posting thoughtful comments on Observations for a while now, and I'm glad to see he has decided to join us bloggers.

---

I have a helluva week ahead, but I hope to be visiting your sites and return to commenting any way.

Thanks for your continued support.

JS

It's Been a Good Week ...

but it's nearly over. I'll be glad to get back to abnormal, when I can visit my friend's sites and comment freely and send emails without concern for how much it's costing.

Ron Artest Should Go to Jail

Ron Artest, who plays for the NBA’s Sacramento Kings, was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence and using force or violence to prevent his victim from reporting a crime, sheriff's spokeswoman Dena Erwin said. Deputies responded to Artest's five-acre estate in the Sacramento suburb of Loomis about 9:30 a.m., where they found a woman who had suffered injuries, officials said. She declined medical attention. Artest was released later on $50,000 bail.

Dogs owned by Mr. Artest have spent a total of 77 nights at the pound since July because of poor care by their owner, costing the NBA star $1,942 in boarding and impound fees, county records show. Placer County animal control officers have gone to Artest's five-acre estate seven times in that period in response to callers' complaints about dogs being loose or not being fed.

And if all that isn’t enough, Mr. Artest was just released from a year’s probation for the brawl he participated in when several NBA players went into the stands after fans.

Artest is one of a legion of “professional” athletes who can play a sport, but are socially dysfunctional. They think they have a different set of rules than everyone else; that they can do pretty much what they please, because of who they are. We blame society for all sorts of ills for which society is not to blame, but this is one phenomenon that is clearly and totally the fault of society. We have screwed up priorities that make gods out of one-trick ponies like Ron Artest, and teach them that they can do what they want with impunity.

Ron Artest needs a slap in the face to get his attention; he needs to go to jail this time. His team needs to be deprived of his talents so that the management starts to get the message that paying thugs and hoodlums millions of dollars a year because they look good in shorts and can jump is stupid when those over-paid degenerates slap people around and behave like spoiled children. The team needs to tell Mr. Artest, “Okay, bub, you screwed up, and you are suspended without pay until you straighten out.”

But more importantly, some judge needs to tell him, “Mr. Artest, you aren’t special. You just play a game well. Life is about more than just games, despite what you have learned from our society’s twisted priorities. You will learn how to live peacefully with other people, you will learn that you are just one person among the 6 billion that inhabit this planet, and you don’t have any more rights than any other individual in this country. And if you keep living the way you’ve been going, breaking laws with abandon and acting like you’re something special, you’ll go back to jail until you figure out this simple lesson.”

These same messages should be delivered to every professional athlete and entertainer and Hollywood idol that hasn’t quite grasped the simple message that they really aren’t as special as they think they are. And the sooner the better!

Technorati Tags: America, Professional Athletes, Culture, Thugs

It’s Only Words

Well, it’s happening. Right here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, a land in which we don’t burn books and don’t ban vulgar lyrics in music or movies, we don’t ban pornographic material, we don’t ban intemperate or inflammatory speech, or depictions of graphic violence. We don’t ban things that may disgust a majority of Americans because freedom of expression is one of the hallmarks of our republic. But right here in America we are today talking about banning select words.

Even those of us who subscribe to the tenets of political correctness probably would oppose such actions on a free speech basis, but if we did somehow come to the decision to ban some words, you might think the words that would be banned would be the “f” word, or the “s” word, or certain words relating to sexual organs. But if you think that, you would be wrong.

We’ve had a sort of de facto ban on one word, the “n” word, for a long time. It isn’t a crime to say the “n” word, but people who say it often are punished for their indiscretion. Remember Michael Richards?

The “n” word is a bad word. No, let’s back up. It isn’t a bad word, not if you look at its origins. But it has a bad connotation, and it has been used for bad purposes. My opinion: I don’t use it; I don’t like it; and I don’t think other people, white or black, should use it, either.

As bad a principle as it is to punish people for some types of speech that is no worse than other types of speech, it is a far worse thing to outlaw certain words that are no worse than other words, but that is what has been proposed in Florida. There, a state senator has introduced a measure to prohibit calling people who enter the United States illegally “illegal aliens.”

"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, a Miami Democrat. "An alien to me is someone from out of space." Fine. But Sen. Wilson, you do realize, don’t you, that the term “alien” has been used for decades to denote someone who is not a citizen of this country? And you should also know that that term is used in the language of legislation of the United States and in many states.

This is political correctness run amok, carried to the extreme. It is simply not acceptable to allow this measure to see the light of day, let alone allow it to become law. Someone needs to tell Ms. Wilson to remember that there is no right for anyone, citizens or aliens, to not be offended. Get used to it.

Technorati Tags: America, Political Correctness, Politics, Liberalism, Freedom of Speech

A Really Busy Time

What a week! Lots of duties, deadlines and things to do to get ready for the trip. We head out tomorrow, and hopefully by Saturday night I can return to some normal level of interaction with everyone.

Until then ...

The Difference Between Idealism and Reality

Things just aren’t going to suit Nancy Pelosi. Since the Democrats claimed majority status in Congress last month there have been more downs than ups for the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. For example, she vowed that five-day workweeks would be a hallmark of a harder-working Democratic majority, but so far the House has worked only one five-day week, and the rest have been the “standard” three-day weeks.

She raised eyebrows and garnered justified criticism when she put Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who had $90,000 in alleged bribe money in his freezer, on the Homeland Security Committee after pledging to make this "the most ethical Congress in history." (Making one Congress more ethical than another one is not a very ambitious goal by some standards, but a difficult task nonetheless.) "Pelosi had to put him somewhere," said an observer who was a minority counsel for a House Judiciary Committee member, "but I am troubled by the fact ... that [Jefferson] is the kind of guy who could not pass a security clearance test and yet now he has access to top-secret government info."

And, now Ms. Pelosi is showing some skin. Thin skin, that is. Vice President Dick Cheyney recently commented, "if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... and then they win because we quit."

Ms. Pelosi called President Bush complaining that Mr. Cheney had impugned her patriotism. Mr. Cheney's comments, however, represent an argument over policy, not patriotism, and the perception of Ms. Pelosi’s patriotism is no weaker following the Vice President’s remark than before it.

A recent poll showed that Ms. Pelosi’s approval rating for running the House is at 50 percent, but that is better that Congress overall, at 41 percent, neither figure all that much to get excited about. All of which brings two things to mind: First, it is routine for liberals to expect results that are not realistic. Second, trying to change the direction of the House of Representatives, where inertia has a tremendously advantageous head of steam, is not so easy as it might appear to an idealistic new Speaker.

Ms. Pelosi is learning the same lesson that Newt Gingrich learned after becoming Speaker in 1994, and that is no matter how honorable the goal, politics rules in Washington. And we can be assured that Nancy Pelosi is at best just another Speaker, and not Superwoman. At least not yet.

Technorati Tags: America, Democrats, Politics, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi

Attention John Murtha!

What part of “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” do you not understand?

Or do you think you and your fellow travelers in the anti-Bush, anti-war camp are above the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which vests control of the military in the President, acting as Commander in Chief.

Presidents have made mistakes for years in allowing Congress to act when it is neither called for nor wise, as in allowing the Senate to approve which general or admiral gets what top position. That is the President’s decision; the Congress has no roll in it. Yet, presidents, apparently trying to be nice and cooperative, have made the mistake of putting these assignments up for approval. Such behavior only increases the self-importance imagined by certain members of Congress.

In this case, they have come to believe they can manipulate the Commander in Chief by playing with funding. Such behavior is inappropriate, dangerous, and reflects the arrogance and petulant nature of Mr. Bush’s enemies, led by John Murtha.

Technorati Tags: America, Democrats, Politics, Liberalism, U.S. Constitution, Iraq War

Woo! Woo! Woo!

Hot Damn! I won the lottery!!

I can’t believe it. I didn’t even enter the darned thing. Yet, as the email below says, I’ve won £1,500,000. I don’t know how much that is in real money, but who cares?

Yeah, I know: it’s a scam.

Pay special attention to the language/English grammar. You’d think with all that money to give away they could afford to hire someone who actually understands and can communicate in English, or at least find someone to proof read the darned thing!

UK National/PRIZE AWARD DEPT
Government Accredited Licensed Promoters,
79 BOVILL ROAD LONDON. SE23 1EL.
Ref: EGS/2251256003/02
Batch: 14/0017/1PD

BONANZA 2007!!!

The board of directors and entire member of staff of the National
Lottery wishes to inform you of the result of the (Email Address
Ballot)online Sweepstakes international program held on the 10th
of January, 2007 at the British Headquarter.

Your email account have been picked as a winner of £1,500,000.00
(ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED GREAT BRITISH POUNDS) in cash credited to
file KU/9023118308/03.

Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 653164251591-6011 with
serial number 7321410,batch number 14/0017/1PD,lottery ref number
EGS/2251256003/02 and drew lucky numbers 4-9-17-36-44-78 which
consequently won in the second category.

Be advice to keep your winning information confidential until your
claims has been processed and your money remitted to you. This is part
of
our security protocol to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of
this program,For the release of your winning.

All winning must be claimed not later than One Week of Acknowledgment.
After this date all unclaimed funds will be returned to European Union
Treasury as Unclaimed. Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays
and complications please remember to quote your reference number in all
correspondence.

You are therefore advised to give the following information's to your
claims agent listed bellow,

Full names........
Address..............
Age....................
Winning numbers.........
Winning sum................
Email address..............
Telephone/Fax number...........
Marital status..................
Occupation.......................
Nationallity......................
Country.............. immediately


Contact Person:Mr.zimmerman paul
TEL:+447011146789
FAX:+447075700233
Email:info_claims231@yahoo.ie

Congratulations from the staff and thank you for being part of email
account users program.

Yours Sincerely,
Mrs. owen becky

The Obama Mystique

He’s likeable. He’s popular. He’s smart. He’s articulate. He’s clean. He’s Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois, and he may be the Democrat’s savior, if we believe the conventional wisdom.

Sen. Obama has taken the country’s left by storm, running second behind Hillary Clinton, and ahead of both John Edwards and Al Gore. Yes, he’s an average of about 18 points behind Mrs. Clinton in recent polls, but he is solidly ahead of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gore. But Mr. Obama has achieved a measure of greatness even if he ultimately loses the nomination to Mrs. Clinton because of his storybook, fairytale start in the 2008 campaign.

Barack Obama is the first serious black presidential candidate the Democrats have had; the Democrats are excited. But does Mr. Obama really have a shot at being President? I don’t think so.

It’s nearly a year and a half before the conventions to nominate candidates for the 2008 election, and almost a year from the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, the first of the important opportunities to take the public’s pulse on candidates. That’s a long time, and a lot can happen. There is ample opportunity for a candidate to self-destruct, to be over-exposed, and for the veneer to wear off.

All of these things hang over the head of any/every presidential hopeful this far in advance of the election. But I think Mr. Obama has a different problem. And, I think Mrs. Clinton has a similar problem.

I would have voted for Jeanne Kirkpatrick for president if the Republicans had nominated her, and I would have voted for Alan Keyes for president if the Republicans had nominated him. But I have serious doubts that the American electorate is prepared to elect either a female or a black as President of the United States.

Beyond that, each of these two hopefuls has their own set of problems that, while not insurmountable, are significant problems. Not to over-simplify these issues, but Mrs. Clinton is a far-Left socialist who is trying mightily to move to the center, and that creates all manner of official inconsistencies that will be hard to reconcile, and then she still has to sell her modified-radical ideas to the voters. And Mr. Obama has to overcome his youth and inexperience, his being only half-black (although perhaps some may see that as a plus), his strong liberal orientation, and his failure so far to express anything more than popular platitudes instead of actual ideas. And perhaps most important, in primary campaigns candidates generally tend to beat each other bloody along the way in order to make themselves look like the better candidate, and that has already begun between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama months before presidential campaigns usually begin.

As always, the political season will be fascinating political theater, and the fact that this one started so far ahead of the usual schedule only increases that aspect.

Technorati Tags: America, Democrats, Politics, Liberalism

Injustice in Pursuit of Political Goals

A while back I wrote a column about what I believe is a monumental miscarriage of justice and prosecutorial misconduct of the worst kind in the perjury trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby titled “Prosecutorial Discretion?”

It is my position that there was never a crime to begin with, and had prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made that essential determination at the beginning, as he should have, the investigation in which Mr. Libby’s alleged perjury occurred would never have taken place, and Mr. Libby’s life would not have been turned upside-down by an over-zealous prosecutor more concerned with his own fortunes than with honorably discharging his duties.

An op-ed in The Washington Post penned by someone much more knowledgeable than I about the intricacies of the Libby case has painted a picture similar to that in my column, but much more damning. Victoria Toensing, a former deputy federal prosecutor and one of the key people in the drafting of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the law that was allegedly broken in the alleged “outing” of CIA “agent” Valerie Plame, sees tremendous problems with the indictment and trial of Mr. Libby, as the following comments show:

Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation? …

Fitzgerald apparently concluded that a purported cover-up was sufficient motive for Libby to trim his recollections in a criminal way. So when Libby's testimony differed from that of others, it was Libby who got indicted.

There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.

If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:

Ms. Toensing then goes on to explain why several others are just as eligible for indictment as Mr. Libby, given the circumstances of this "case." Those of you who believe in true justice ought to read the entire Victoria Toensing article.

I think you will come to the conclusion that the trial of Lewis Libby is a circus and a travesty, and stems not from a criminal act, but from an anti-Bush/anti-Cheney political agenda that attempted to create a crime—the supposed outing of CIA covert agent—where no crime, in fact, existed.

Technorati Tags: America, Justice, Politics, Crime

Al-Qaeda Threatens Oil Supply

An al-Qaeda-linked Saudi Arabian terrorist faction has urged Muslim militants to attack oil facilities in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela to stop the flow of oil to the US, according to an article posted on the Internet.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula believes that "cutting oil supplies to the United States, or at least curtailing it, would contribute to the ending of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Two thoughts: First, I don’t think interrupting the oil supply will affect our presence in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. A large number of Americans, including more than a few elected officials, are ready to bail out already, and if you add into the mix some discomfort at the gas pumps, quite a few more will certainly fold up under the stress. They don’t think we can win; they don’t want to win. Despite that, and while much of the recent behavior from some members of Congress tells the world that America is weak and has no will to fight terrorists, the Commander-In-Chief, the guy who makes the decisions on military operations, is not afraid, is not ready to bail out and is determined to defeat terrorists everywhere, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, al-Qaeda’s fanatic obsession with hurting the United States produces actions that are bordering on, or perhaps venturing into, the la-la land of incoherent lunacy. So consumed with hurting the U.S. is this bunch of extremists that they kill fellow Muslims—man, woman and child—with complete disregard and now threaten to attack oil supplies, some of which are located in Arab/Muslim countries, some of which are in countries that are also enemies of the U.S., or at least not good friends of ours.

You have to wonder whether at some point al-Qaeda’s irrational behavior will turn the whole world against it?

The fact is that no nation is safe from these obsessed, supercilious goofballs, as is becoming more and more clear as time passes. Al-Qaeda may be focused primarily on the United States right now, but that is temporary. Anyone that doesn’t agree with the narrow, repressive, and murderous philosophy subscribed to by the maniacal leaders of this devil’s alliance is a future target. It is just a matter of time.

Technorati Tags: America, War on Terror, al-Qaeda, Oil, Culture

Troubles Continue for the Big Easy

Okay, people, here’s the question: Whose fault is this?

9 Shot As New Orleans Starts Mardi Gras
February 16th, 2007

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - With tourists streaming into town for Mardi Gras celebrations, a spasm of gun violence left two people dead and seven wounded - more bad news for a city struggling to rebuild itself and its tourism industry.

Is it FEMA’s fault? Mike Brown’s? George Bush’s? The Department of Homeland Security’s? The Governor of Louisiana’s? The Mayor’s?

The level of violence in New Orleans is nothing new; it was a violent place before Katrina, and it is a violent place after Katrina. Mayor Ray Nagin did less than called for to prepare for the coming hurricane last August, and he hasn’t changed behavior during the rebuilding and repackaging of his city since.

After Katrina a debate raged about whether it made any sense to rebuild a city on the Gulf of Mexico that lies below sea level, but sympathy for its residents and nostalgia for the city itself carried the day. But if Mr. Nagin doesn’t quickly get control of the criminal element in NOLA, it will be a colossal waste of money and resources.

Technorati Tags: Crime, New Orleans, Law and Order, America, Culture

Congress in 2007

Now that the Democrats have regained control of the U.S. Congress in last November's election, the reminders of why they shouldn't be in charge come rushing back.

Since the much vaunted 100 Hour Plan was dispensed with all we have heard from Capital Hill is a lot of noise about a non-binding resolution expressing the “sense of the Congress” about President Bush’s new way forward in Iraq. The measure is meaningless because it is a toothless action that can’t force anyone to do or not do anything; Congress doesn’t direct military operations, the Commander-In-Chief does.

The Democrats are guilty of—to be generous—exaggeration and disingenuousness in putting forth the claim that Congress is opposed to the Bush plan to increase troop strength in Iraq by more than 21,000. This politically-based foolishness began in the House of Representatives where the vote on the measure was 246-182, meaning that the resolution had the support of only 57 percent of the members who voted. That margin may be enough to pass a resolution that means nothing, but it is far less that necessary to support the claim that the House opposes the troop surge. For such a claim you would need the support of more than 70 percent of voting members, and to convey the idea that the House is solidly behind it, you ought to have 80 percent support. The measure had only 17 Republicans favoring it, and didn’t even have all the Democrats behind it, hardly a strong statement of solidarity of opposition.

The Senate will begin consideration of what to do about this silliness in a rare Saturday session today.

Typical of liberal initiatives, this affair substitutes symbolism for substance, and the only thing this foolishness will accomplish is to signal the world that the U.S. is weak and divided about our activities in Iraq. Isn’t that a great message to issue in support of our military?

If the Democrats want to make a real statement against the war, they ought to draft real legislation that would have a real effect, and that would be to defund the war. And they may in the future attempt such an ill-advised stunt. However, to do that would put the military at risk, and we all know how solidly the Democrats support the troops. What the new majority really wants is to have its cake and eat it, too: blather on about how the surge won’t work, but fail to take a truly principled position against it.

Democrats are overdriving their headlights on this one, behaving as if the election gave them a mandate to do as they please. It didn’t, and the closeness of the vote in the House underscores that point rather dramatically. The American people may be frustrated with the way things are going in Iraq, but they do not agree with the Democrat mantra: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead—meaning get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

Technorati Tags: Congress, Liberals, Patriotism, America, Iraq War, War On Terror

Important Advice for All Men!

Dear Tech Support:

Last year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0. I soon noticed that the new program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot of space and valuable resources.

In addition, Wife 1.0 installed itself into all other programs and now monitors all other system activity. Applications such as Poker Night 10.3, Football 5.0 , Hunting and Fishing 7.5 , and Racing 3.6.

I can't seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while attempting to run my favorite applications. I'm thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0, but the uninstall doesn't work on Wife 1.0.

Please help!

Thanks,

Troubled User

_____________________________________

REPLY:

Dear Troubled User:

This is a very common problem that men complain about.

Many people upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0, thinking that it is just a Utilities and Entertainment program. Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and is designed by its Creator to run EVERYTHING!!! It is also impossible to delete Wife 1.0 and to return to Girlfriend 7.0. It is impossible to uninstall, or purge the program files from the system once installed.

You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is designed to not allow this. Look in your Wife 1.0 manual under Warnings-Alimony/Child Support. I recommend that you keep Wife 1.0 and work on improving the situation. I suggest installing the background application "Yes Dear" to alleviate software augmentation.

The best course of action is to enter the command C:\ APOLOGIZE! Because, ultimately you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the system will return to normal anyway.

Wife 1.0 is a great program, but it tends to be very high maintenance. Wife 1.0 comes with several support programs, such as Clean and Sweep 3.0, Cook It 1.5 and Do Bills 4.2 .

However, be very careful how you use these programs. Improper use will cause the system to launch the program Nag Nag 9.5. Once this happens, the only way to improve the performance of Wife 1.0 is to purchase additional software. I recommend Flowers 2.1 and Diamonds 5.0!

WARNING!!! DO NOT, under any circumstances, install Secretary With Short Skirt 3.3. This application is not supported by Wife 1.0 and will cause irreversible damage to the operating system!

Best of luck,

Tech Support

Technorati Tags: Marriage, Culture, Society, America

Exxon Mobil Gouging the Public in Pursuit of Profits?

America’s oil companies have been taking a beating lately because at a time when gasoline prices are at an all-time high, oil company profits are also high. The favorite target for criticism is Exxon Mobil, which reported record net income of $39.5 billion in 2006. That’s $39,500,000,000, which is also a record increase from 2005 of 15% or $3,370,000,000. People get upset when they see gasoline prices soaring and oil companies are making big profits, and all they see is oil companies gouging the public. and making windfall profits.

Now $39.5 billion is a lot of money. But you can’t look only at how much money a company makes, you have to look also at what the company spent during the year and how much gross revenue (income before expenses are subtracted) those expenditures produced, and you have to look at what percentage of total business the profit amount is. When you consider that Exxon Mobil spent $310.2 billion and produced gross revenue of $377.6 billion, all of a sudden that $39.5 billion seems a lot smaller. It is only one-eighth of the company’s total expenditures (12.7percent), and was just 10.5 percent of gross revenue.

Put another way, Exxon Mobil spent $8.00 for every $1.00 it made. Put still another way, for every $100 Exxon Mobil spent doing business in 2006, it put $12.70 in the bank. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers don’t think that’s enough and look for 15-20 percent. Banks generally make 14 percent. McDonalds made 13.8 percent and Coca-Cola made 21.20 percent in a recent quarter. Google made 24.2 percent. Exxon Mobil’s profits are not really out of line when compared with other companies and other industries.

Exxon Mobil spent $310.2 billion in 2006 for things like wages and benefits, exploration and drilling, refining crude oil into consumer products, distribution of products, and taxes. Nearly a third of Exxon’s total expenditures, in fact, went to taxes, including $27.9 billion in income taxes, $30.4 billion in sales-based taxes, and $42.4 billion for other taxes such as payroll taxes. Altogether, Exxon Mobil paid $100.7 billion in taxes, more than twice as much as it recorded in net income. Those taxes to the federal government and state and local governments built roads, paid for schools, went for Medicare and Medicaid payments, Workers Compensation and other social programs, police and military forces, and so on.

What did Exxon Mobil do for the people who invested their money in the company? If you had bought Exxon stock on the first business day of 2006 at the lowest price paid on that day you would have spent $56.42 for one share. By the end of the year you would have been paid $6.62 in dividends, 17 percent of what you paid for the stock, and the stock would have been worth $76.63. That’s a pretty good return and pretty good growth. And contrary to the conventional wisdom, it isn’t only rich people that own Exxon Mobil stock; it is owned not just by individual investors, but by mutual funds and retirement funds and lots of Americans own mutual fund shares and lots of Americans have retirement plans. The corporation distributed a total of $32.6 billion to shareholders in 2006 through dividends and the purchases of outstanding shares. Does that benefit the economy? You bet it does. Is that good for people who own shares of Exxon Mobil stock or shares of a mutual fund that holds Exxon Mobil stock, or who participate in a retirement plan that own Exxon Mobil? No doubt about it.

The reality is that Exxon Mobil isn’t making obscene profits, and it isn’t gouging the public. Just because it produces a product whose cost has risen sharply lately doesn’t mean that Exxon Mobil ought to lose money or even reduce its profitability so the price of gasoline can be kept artificially low. Yes the company made a lot of money last year, but as a percentage of what it spent during the year it and how much revenue the company produced, it wasn’t all that much; many other companies showed higher numbers.

Technorati Tags: Business, Culture, Finance, America, Oil Companies, Capitalism

Too Many Laws

The more laws we have, the less freedom we have. Ideally, a nation has enough laws to provide stability but not so many that you can't keep track of them or that they unnecessarily impede the enjoyment of living in a free land.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is bouncing the idea around of outlawing cell phone use by teenagers while driving. It is the third year this legislation has been introduced, and as is so often the case with proposed legislation, the intent is good. It resulted from an accident when the driver of a car, distracted from driving because she was talking on her cell phone, pulled into the path of a fast-moving truck and was killed in the accident, and her passenger seriously injured.

However, it is a well-accepted maxim that you can’t legislate morality, and it should be just as well accepted that you can’t legislate common sense, as this bill attempts to do. The death of the young girl and the injury of her young female passenger are tragic, to be sure. But they are not a proper basis for a law.

Laws should be relatively few and should be directed at major areas of concern. We shouldn’t have laws prohibiting spitting on the street, crossing in the middle of a block, riding a motorcycle without a helmet and riding in a car without a seatbelt, and a huge array of behaviors that do not substantially harm the populace at large.

We have too many laws already, and we Virginians should hope that the General Assembly has sense enough to stop this law again.

Here are some thoughts on laws and legislation by some smart people:

"It is one of the finest problems in legislation, what the state ought to take upon itself to direct and what it ought to leave, with as little interference as possible, to individual discretion" - Edmund Burke

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes." - Abraham Lincoln

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." - Lyndon B. Johnson

"The world is not going to be saved by legislation." - William Howard Taft

"As a rule of thumb, Congressional legislation that is bipartisan is usually twice as bad as legislation that is partisan." - Thomas Sowell

Technorati Tags: Legislation, Culture, Society, America, Citizenship, Freedom