bigtimeblog

another day, another blog

Friday, April 18, 2008

I picked up the daughter and a friend from FSU this afternoon, and on the trip home, the topic of politics came up. As is the case with any marginally educated daughter from a Democrat-heavy household, I was gentle.

In response to her statement "I just don't see a clearly defined exit strategy from Iraq," I gently asked,

"What is out exit strategy from Germany?"

(grand pause)

"What is our exit strategy from England and the UK?"
"What is our exit strategy from Italy?"
"What is our exit strategy from Japan?"
"What is our exit strategy from South Korea?"
"What is our exit strategy from Afghanistan?"

Blank stares and mumbling are sometimes just as good as an answer.

Thursday, April 17, 2008


Ah, the smell of new artwork! Bumper stickers, anyone?

Ah, a new political season. Might be time to start posting again...

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Thought I'd just wait a year before posting again. How'd I do?

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Kerry's Abu-Ghraib

Terrorists attacked Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters nationwide this week in an apparently coordinated attempt to intimidate camapign workers and destroy campaign materials prior to next month's presidential elections. Implicit in these attacks is an attempt to intimidate conservative and/or Republican voters in the locations which were targeted for attack.

In the same spirit in which the Democratic leadership, including prominent Senator Nancy Pelosi, assigned responsibility for actions of subordinates to the most senior in that chain of command (Namely, Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush), I call upon the Democratic leadership to immediately, publicly and unequivocally condemn the actions of the AFL-CIO in coordinating the terrorist acts, and the actions of the participating protesters.

Further, as was supported by Senators Kerry and Edwards", I call upon Terry McCauliffe to immediately tender his resignation, as the person most responsible for that actions of all democratic operatives. Maybe a Congressional inquiry is appropriate in this case.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Vietnam All Over Again


Looks like John Fn Kerry might be right this time...until he changes his tune again.

For the second verifyable time in his otherwise absent political career, John Kerry is plotting against the United States in a foreign war. During the Vietnam War, Kerry worked to publicly discredit the military, the government and to give aid and comfort to those who were killing our troops and contractors.

At least in this one respect, Senator Kerry is consistent. In our current conflict in Iraq, he has used his contacts, influence and platform to try to discredit our military and government. At a time when we should be united as a nation to create a sence of urgency and fear in the hearts of our enemies, John Kerry is complicit in the deaths of every soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There may be differences of opinion over what is Patriotic and not. I'm guessing helping people kill our troops is definitely NOT patriotic.

Sunday, September 12, 2004

Rathergate 2004

You know how parents can always tell when their kids are lying? I hate to say it, but Dan Rather reminds me of my kids, sometimes.

"William of Occam (or Ockham), a 13th century philosopher, summed it up in what is now paraphrased as “given a choice between two explanations, choose the simpler explanation” (or as he said it, “entities are not to be multiplied without necessity”). You cannot assemble a set of assertions about what MIGHT have been possible using a variety of unrelated technologies that existed in 1972, and somehow magically combine them into a single technology that could have existed in the offices of the Texas Air National Guard, used for casual memos, and produced the memos in question that are VIRTUALLY PIXEL-LEVEL IDENTICAL TO THOSE PRODUCED BY MICROSOFT WORD." (c/o Joseph M. Newcomer at http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm) It's a rather long, technical read -very informative!

More authoritative opines:
Hugh Hewitt
Animated Comparison Link from Little Green Footballs
Questions and Opinions.com

Kinda makes you wonder what ELSE CBS has been lying about, doesn't it?

Saturday, August 21, 2004

The Associated Press is the Axis of Evil

My volume gets turned up a few notches when I read newspaper articles parrotted from anonymous bulk "news" suppliers like the AP and others: example.
These guys continue to ignore all the things we have found, and KEEP finding. So I thought I'd do a little research and post links to make it easy for the news flunkies to get up to speed with:

Iraqi Nuclear program
Uranium Stockpile
Scientist hands over documents and parts.
Even CNN saw it
Mobile biological labs
...and another at a missle factory
Iraqi missle engines in Jordan? Yup!
Fighter Jets found buried in desert
Both mustard gas and sarin gas found...
Other banned weapons programs...
David Kay's input
Other banned weapons programs...
Other banned weapons programs...
...and another...

So the newspaper editors who continue to repeat the lies propogated by organiztions like the AP and others would seem to be as complicit in these falsehoods as are the authors of this trash. Have WMDs been found? Darn tootin! Links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam? Yup, and probably financed by the UN!

Monday, August 16, 2004

The Last Time I Saw a Hurricane This Close . . .

Ok there was no last time. We watched the trees across the culdesac bending almost to breaking, power went out, and then a bit of calm. We stepped out front to see the bottom of the roots of our 50-foot oak facing the front door.

The wind had calmed down, and we noticed the irrigation line had broken when the tree fell over, so I went out front to shut off the irrigation valve.

My neighbor across the street called to me that her front window had blown in (facing the wind), so I got a big piece of cardboard from the garage to help reinforce the opening. I got back over to the house about the time the winds picked up smartly from the opposite direction they had just been.

Can you say Eye of the Storm?

Friday, June 18, 2004

Predicting Predictions


I am constantly amazed at the bashing the President gets for not
predicting and preventing the outcome of Sept 11, not finding of masses
of WMD (I understand we have found WMD, just not huge cahces), not
finding a huge Al Queada connection (again, we found only a small one),
and guranteeing a smooth, bloodless transfer of power to a new Iraqi
government.

I saw this morning a post about the astonishment scientists have
elicited at new findings about comets:
VOA News

I recall the same scientific astonishment at finding Volcanoes on
Jupiter's moon, Io, at finding 1500mph winds on Neptune, and on
discovering ice volcanoes on Triton!

You'd think that these scientists, who can predict global warming, sea
level rise, mass extinctions, et. al. would be able to accurately
predict what the surface of a comet looks like, what with all the
head-starts Hollywood has given them in doomsday movies.

Well, you know, they would, if they were held to the same standards of
premonition as President Bush is.

What do you think?

Saturday, May 08, 2004

By the way: Kerry is a recovering WAR CRIMINAL. Anybody know how to initiate war crimes proceedings?

After hearing about the lynching of Don Rumsfeld, I added a few new products to the lineup: cafe press. You never know, thirty years from now the parties may swap roles again...

Friday, March 26, 2004

Unpresidential Politics?

WoooHaaaa! What a riot! Can you believe the hoopla over all the stuff in Washington this week. And top of the list seems to be the President making jokes about WMD. Isn't it laughable that even if President Bush really WAS a goofbal, even if he DIDN'T pursue BinLadle half as hard as Xxxxxxx says he did, even if Richard Clark DIDN'T contradict himself as often as Kerry and Wesley Clark....

Even If...

GW would STILL be a better choice for President than John Kerry.

Boy, if I were a Democrat, I bet my head would be spinning round and round, too. How funny that a podunk like Bush is still a better man than any of the Democrats on stage last night!

Sunday, March 21, 2004

Jimmy Carter is no Hero

I was sitting at lunch with some associates sometime last year. I don't want to paint them as unlikable, but since that lunch, I have determined not to deliberately spend time with them. During a rather unmemorable portion of whatever conversation was ensuing, one of the ladies said of the former U.S. President, "Jimmy Carter, what a hero!"

Now, I don't want to appear to belittle all the truly notable ideas and pro-active stands which in some cases have actually resulted in good being done, such as Habitiat for Humanity, the "idea" of the Camp David, Israel/Palestinian accords, or the thought, however belated, that hostages might be rescuable, and that there should be consideration for individuals' human rights worldwide. All of that, however, needs to be balanced with truth and reality.

The TRUTH is that Jimmy Carter seems to be a truly compassionate and pro-active guy. The SAD TRUTH is that he was also a miserable President.

There are lots of people who do a lot of good through their drive, vision and experience. That doesn't at all mean that the person will be a successful politician, let alone a good President. Jimmy Carter was not one of the best Presidents, he was one of the worst. His poor judgement was apparently compounded by his miserable choices in cabinet positions, a bunch who similarly diminished the chances Bill Xxxxxxx (we don't use profanity on this site) might have had a shot at a relevant presidency.

Carter, at least had a relevant place in history. His miserable judgement at solving international issues generated predictable outcomes. The beauty of timing is that Ronald Reagan used seasoned judgement, unjaundiced by emotional experimentationalism (defined here as trying something simply on the basis of its' perceived moral direction) managed a similarly predictable outcome, but with a different decision process, he achieved positive resolutions. Where Carter exacerbated fuel and pollution crises by trying to manage them, Reagan actually achieved reduced pollution and environmental progress by reducing tax rates and allowing energy companies to invest in research and capital improvements. Where Carter initiated failed negotiated peace accords, Regan achieved peace by insisting on honest negotiations, backed up by the threat of force. Worked in Iran. Worked in Lybia. Worked in Ireland. Worked in Russia.

Carter, having never learned the lessons of history, feebly ascertained that enemies could be defeated with good intentions. Powerful, or fearless enemies can afford to entertain an opponent, with no intention of submission or agreement. Ronald Regan proved that it took moral backbone combined with overwhelming military strength, to defeat militarily significant adversaries.

Carter has also never admittied to himself how pitiful his job as president truly was. Had he a clue, he would meekly shy away from any attempt to counsel or chastise any other politicians, or to offer advice on any political subject. Bill Xxxxxxx, at least, seems to have learned a portion of that lesson, and he has, surprisingly, developed into a relatively wise, post-presidential statesman, his lack of official accomplishment notwithstanding.

Carter should keep his political mouth shut. He has as much integrity in politics as Michael Moore does in documentary filmmaking. Sure, they both have followings: So did Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Saddam, and so on, and so on...

Hero? Him? Not even close.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

"Decorated" or "Decorations"

Is there a difference between being a decorated war veteran, and using war to decorate your past? Of course there is. John McCain is a decorated war hero. Though I disagree with his politics, he apparently suffered at the hand of our enemy, the North Vietnamese, in a squalid, torturous cell for years, when using his status as the son of a politician might have brought him comfort.

John Kerry, on the other hand, was slightly pricked thrice and left the battle early to attmpt to create an environment in the U.S. which would cause defeat in Southeast Asia, and which doubtless specifically caused the deaths of American Military personnel.

Of course, that pales with the admitted reality that the candidate the Democrats wil promote for their nominee is in reality a war criminal.

"I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty. But we are not trying to find war criminals. That is not our purpose. It never has been."

After electing a perjorative rapist, and nominating a lying hypocrite, it only make sense that the Democrats would now produce a war criminal to represent their interests.

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

May the Best Man Win

So, MAYBE GW Bush missed the boat on WMD, and MAYBE the economy isn't what it could be and MAYBE more could be done about homeland security, and MAYBE he doesn't talk too good, and MAYBE there are other more qualified people who should be President, but MAYBE you should consider that he is still a better choice than the Democratic alternative.

It must drive liberals stinking CRAZY to know that the best candidate that they can muster is still worse than the worst the Republicans can offer. Of course it does.

Bush could lead us into a full-blown recession and I'd STILL vote for him over Kerry.

Too Bad

So Mel Gibson has decided to weigh in on politics. Too bad. I had really hoped to schedule a time to see "The Passion of The Christ" this week. but now I guess I'll wait for the DVD to be loaned to me for free.

I have a problem with politicians trying to tell me what is good art, and I have a problem with artists trying to tell me what is good politics. Sorry, Mel, though my wife still thinks you're the cat's meow, I sadly have to relegate you to the pile with Hanoi Jane (and John), Tim Robbins, Sheryl Crow, and the Dixie Twits, none of whom will be getting my money for their work.

Or their opinions.

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Photoshop Class, Once again


Photoshop class transpired once again at GeniusDV at Celebration, Florida. The weather was great, especially compared to the reports about Buffalo, where John, one of today's students, is from. He's going back to the snow tomorrow.

Sorry, John.

Monday, February 02, 2004

Do it Yourself

So I'm distracting myself from the intellectual pain of watching the democratic primaries and constipated arguments made by the candidates, by buying and beginning work on my own custom motorcycle. While googling for "make your own handlebars" I stumbled across this guy who made his own Segway, which reminded me of the project I'm going to start someday, that is building my own "Pedal Segway". Gotta get to work practicing my welding technique.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

Kerry and the Military

You can tell John Kerry reads the newspaper. According to DefenseLINK News, he noticed at least one in a series of articles in the Boston Globe in June of 1997, entitled "Casualties of Peace". Following a letter to the Inspector General of the DoD, a partial report was published via the DoD defense link.

These reports quantify the disproportionally low number of combat casualties we are suffering in the clean-up of Iraq, compared with the number we lose to accidents and training even during peacetime. This and more are argued by this Sacramento Bee article from December 2003.

Maybe I'm wrong, here, but is it possible George Bush is responsible for fewer military deaths in war than Bill Xxxxxxx (no profanity on this site) produced in peacetime?

You GO, John.

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Democratic Doublespeak


What an amazing sight tonight at the Democratic debate. After the debate I watched Sean Hannity interviewing the publicists for Wes Clark and John Kerry. He asked both of them specific questions about their candidates' changing positions on the war in Iraq and published statements from both candidates. In both cases, the pundits claimed that their candidates had been perfectly consistent in their historical remakrs, in spite of specific statements that anyone can read which are obviously different, and transparently formulated for political expediency.

These statements should be impossible to shy away from, impossible to deny to anyone, including the Democratically challenged. Sadly, there seems to be no proof for those who just will not admit the obvious.

Just today I related to a close friend who happens to hang out with all the wrong sorts (self inclusive, I guess) and therby at least has an excuse for her positions. I carelessly commented on the State of the Union address, and Nancy Pellosi's stupefied response. Imagine how embarrased a normal person would be to find that a statement they spoke on broadcast TV had been PROVEN inaccurate before you said it! (I refer to the President rendering void any accusation of a lack of international support for our actions toward Saddam's regieme by specifially mentioning the names of all but 17 of the countries who have been participating in that cation with us. She commented that we should not be acting unilaterally, and emphasized that President Bush's actions were specifically unilateral.)

To my surprize, my friend stated that she thought that unilateral meant to act without the UN, and implied dictating policy to other participating nations. O.M.G!!!
In what alien universe does "Unilateral" mean "Acting with other nations, just not the right other nations???"

Well, apparently it exists in the typical Democratic mind. Of course, we all know that they still don't know what the definition of "Is" is.

What putrid stupidity. If you can't start by agreeing on terminology and definition, how can you hope to negotiate laws and goals and such? It doesn't surprise me that Democrats don't understand economics - they don't have to.

If they want there to be prosperity, they simply call the status quo prosperous.

This also describes why they believe President Bush to be evil. They will never have to prove it...they just say it is true...and to them, it is true.

How sad for our country. These people would have willingly walked into Hitler's death camps... -and would have invited their friends to come along with them.

Monday, January 19, 2004

The New Project


By the way, the new motorcycle project came home yesterday. News as events warrant.

Environmental Motives

I took the boy to the Orlando Science Center today for a day out. They have an interesting flight and aeronautics display set up with wind tunnels, simulators, and a possible authentic sliver of fabric from the original 1903 Wright Flyer, signed by Orville Himself. It's an interesting thing to watch a young mind learn about aviation, technology and history in one short year.

Thanksgiving, I took him to Dayton to visit the Air Force Museum, a really remarkable assemblage of WW1 to modern aircraft, nicely arranged and available for close-up inspection, photography and everything. We took time to see the Wright Bicycle shop, visit the local sights, etc., and had a great trip. After Christmas, we drove to Norfolk, stopping on the Outer Banks long enough to visit the Wright Brothers memorial at Kitty Hawk, briefly. We did a day at the Smithsonian, but Trek, now a mature aviation reviewer, and had little time for re-visiting aircraft he had already seen in Dayton. We missed seeing the new annex at Dulles because he was so impatient about his visit downtown.

So anyway, we went to the Science Center today, and one of the noteworthy events was the pleasant enjoyment of a movie in the CineDome about Fantastic Caves. You can see the website of one of the authors here. One of the most repeated phrases I recall from the viewing of this piece was how all their research and investigation was to see if perhaps some beneficial microbe might be lurking in the muck, ice or water in one of the caves they spent so much time and effort to get to and into. I wouldn't think of discounting the potential benefits of the discovery of beneficial plants or animals, but it stood out in sharp relief how asinine and shallow the arguments for preserving pristine environments sometimes are.

For example, if we act to preserve the rainforests for the sake of the discovery of a new beneficial vaccine, are we not doing this for humans? It seems to me that the ones accused of destroying the rainforests are humans, and rightly the humans who live there. So are we saying that the benefit of vaccines for rich developed nations and the pharmaceutical agencies that will develop them outweigh the benefits to those who wish to clear land to feed their families, because they have no means to buy food from other sources? Seems rather selfish to me.

Too bad. If we could have an honest discourse about resources, rights, development and environmentcal care, maybe more people on the earth would benefit with less damage to our environment.

Saturday, December 20, 2003

"Cease, lest he suffer humiliation!"

I marvelled at the outry and fear generated by the posting of images of Saddam receiving better treatment at the hands of the "evil Americans" than most of the rest of the world ever thinks to do for themselves.

Actually I didn't marvel. You could have predicted the outcry.

Liberals have a habit of demonstrating either lunacy or hypocricy, sometimes both. The fear in this case was that (first of all, that Saddam WAS humiliated by us, I disagree that he was) by publicly humiliating this despot, that we were in essence humiliating all Iraqi men. Of course we weren't humiliating Iraqi women, because the Baathists and Sunnis don't recognize women as equals.
If, and in my book it's a big IF, were actually did humiliate Saddam more than he did by hiding in an old septic tank to begin with, the only people on the face of the earth who were prostrated along with him were like-minded members of his former regeime, terrorists who think they can hide without consequence forever, other international despots and liberal Democrats in this country who supported all of the above, out of hatred for the current, legally elected President.

If you want to look into things that REALLY bother the Arabs and Muslims, try sending a woman to negotiate a business deal with them. Sure, you can pretend that the deal carries the same weight with them that a male would, but you'd be fooling yourself in the same dreamworld that says the Japanese are inclusive of "round-eyes" in their innermost circles of social interaction. Someday it will happen. Today it does so only rarely.

Now, before you blow a gasket -what's that? Oh, too late, I guess.

Well, for those of you who are open minded enough to read things you generally disagree with long enough to see whether you are prepetuating the truth or a lie, let me state that I think there is no difference, preference, advantage or disadvantage to having, using or being represented by a man, woman, child or elder, black, white, hadicapped, blind or sighted, regardless. This includes Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Agnostics, Atheists, and Undecideds. Gay, straight, celibate, who cares. I know, work, live with, work with and love all sorts. I can think of people who fit all those categories whom I despise as well. Takes all sorts.

What I do believe, and where I do have boundaries, is that in matters of life and death ONLY the most qualified should attend to the matter personally. Where life and limb are not at risk, then anyone with confidence should be given the opportunity to give it a go, without prejudice.

If the arrogance of America had a part in the terrorists targeting us more fervently, it had more to do with humiliating our Arab neighbors by sending women to represent us as Ambassadors. (Quick, read what I wrote above about thinking women are no less qualified than men at ANYTHING) The problem is not in our confidence in a woman, the problem is with the typical modern Arab in trusting and respecting the words of a woman.

We had great success in Desert Storm in demonstrating to the Arab alliance that women were competent to command men in the arena of war. That went a long way towards tearing down myths the Saudis and Kuwaitis held socially for aeons. Today, as a result of demonstrating this in front of them, the Saudi Air Force wouldn't flinch at hearing a female commander issuing orders over the radio. It may take another generation before the Saudis actually have a female military commander, though.

The Tuskeegee Airmen were an important asset to the American Air War effort in WWII. The method of integrating such qualified pilots into the mainstream was to be sneaky and prove that they could do the job. Same holds true of Gays in the military, women in combat, etc., etc., etc. Who did more to help integrate our country -Rosa Parks and Malcolm X or Jim Brown and Jesse Owens? Rosa inspired a lot of young, fed up people to get in the face of their oppressors and prove that laws were wrong. Today, we still have hateful, resentful blacks and whites. Jim Brown quietly encouraged other black atheletes to excell in dress, manners, speech, courtesy and education. Jim Brown to this day still prefers hiring and doing business exclusively with blacks, probably because the people he hires are generally better dressed, mannered, and are more courteous and respectful that the whites I have to hang out with.

What we did wrong in Iraq was to send a woman to be our Ambassador in the years leading up to the original Gulf war. Was this improper because a woman can't do the job? NOPE. Was it improper because the leadership in Iraq were idiots who discounted anything a woman might say to them? Well, we might need to discuss that.

But NOPE.

What was and is improper about sending a woman ambassador to the typical Muslim state is that in their mind, you are showing deliberate disrespect, just as if you extended to them your left hand in greeting (an insult) just as if you refused to stop talking at prayer time, just as if you refused to wash you hands before a meal.

There are ways to bring all people into the 20th century (they'll only be a century behind now) but everything we do to influence the rest of the world ought to be done with love and respect. We really do need to show other governments how to be modern and progressive by leading them down the right paths when they are eager to learn, and to bomb the daylights out of them when they kill our citizens. But when they are generally benign, don't threaten to kill us and don't care much for our customs, we shouldn't be so eager to force our customs, practices, policies and preferences down their throats, espacially when we have evidence that such a direct approach is both disrespectful and offensive.

The party of tolerance, understanding and progressiveness should strive to be so tolerant, understanding and progressive.

Thursday, November 20, 2003

Something to Write Home About

Ok, so there's nothing to write home about. Not much at all to write about at all. Found a set of rims I might buy for the Saab to fix the one bad one that came on the car..heard about Michael Jackson reporting for booking, communists posing as legitimate protestors in England, there are rumors the Democrats will be fielding candidates for the upcoming presidential election, you know. Lots of dribble dribbling out from the press today. Actually not alot of dribble, as best I can tell. Economy must still be growing, actions in Iraq must be working.

Oh, I heard Bob Graham doing an interview on the radio this morning. What do you say when the one reasonable, nearly likeable Democrat you know turns out to be a mindless git? I'm still searching for words.

Peace.

Saturday, November 01, 2003

Praising Roger

I'll admit it. There are Democrats whos company I could enjoy. Roger L. Simon is one of them, but I think its likely because he might really just be a conservative Republican who doesn't yet know it. Roger recently posted:

"Let me begin by saying that there is not a great deal of domestic policy about which I agree with George Bush. I think taxes should not be reduced for the upper classes. I would like to see a lot more done for the environment, including the automobile companies being forced to build truly fuel-efficient cars as quickly as possible. I favor a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage. I’d like to see salaries raised for teachers. I could go on, but I think you get the picture—..."

Since I have a great deal of respect for Roger, but I feel his positions need challenging, I'm gonna post comments here, rather than mess things up for him and his readers on his blog.

Item 1: "I think taxes should not be reduced for the upper classes." The IRS posts documents which clearly state which income levels pay what amounts, percentages and relative amounts of taxes as compared to other income levels. If these income levels are what Roger refers to as "classes" then at least he's only misspeaking, not simply wrong. Britiain, India and Brazil have "classes" of people who are born into a certain "caste" and have no remedy for that fortune, or misfortune, of birth. These classes prevent a social translation one to another, unlike the United States, where a person like Michael Moore can become an undeserved, overnight financial success, and someone like F. Scott Fitzgerald, who can be born into noble stock, achieve great success, and die penniless.

The truth is, from the pages of the IRS Fact sheets, in our country, only "rich" people pay taxes. If you're going to give anyone a tax cut, it will only benefit "rich" people, something like 20 percent of our population, because a full 50% of our population pay no income tax. If what you want is a gift to people who actually pay no income tax, let's at least be honest and call it what it is.

Point 2: "I would like to see a lot more done for the environment, including the automobile companies being forced to build truly fuel-efficient cars as quickly as possible." What more would you like to see done for the environment? Maybe we could start with researching what pollution is. If CO2 is really a poison gas. like the environmentalists claim we should prohibit its production, just like we did the distribution of chloro-flouro carbons a decade ago. (Seems the ozone hole is still growing for some strange reason, but certainly not due to any cycle of unusual solar activity.) Well, the fact that plant life in the amazon basin requires CO2, might make it imperative that we not totally probibit its' production. In any case, resumption of nuclear research and power plant construction would fix all of this, allow us to remove environmental debacles like the Hoover Dam, TVA, and Mississippi River levees, regardeless of any flood control benefits we so shallowly thought we could impose on nature.

Regarding forcing vehicle manufacturers to build fuel-efficient cars: What a novel concept! We could have 100mpg autos tomorrow if we all switched to diesel and bought European imports! Well, maybe not. The myth is that we're running out of "fossil" fuels. We're not. Building zero-emission cars is a good idea, but it's ironic that the really over-hyped "hybrid" solution actually produces more emissions, and gets poorer mileage than a better performing diesel car. Imagine that!

Roger, what would you be willing to pay for a really fuel-efficient car? Would you be willing to start the trend and insist your book publisher use polymer based printing products, rather than paper products? Bet you couldnt sell near as many at that price, no matter how many you convinced the publisher to print.

By the way, eliminating traffic lights, toll booths and public buses stopping traffic on busy roads could save as much as 2 gallons of fuel for every car in our country, every month!

Item 3: "I favor a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage." (did he mean I favor a woman’s right to choose a gay marriage? -guess not) For the record, I favor a woman's right to choose as well. He, She, It should be able to do anything to her, his, its own body, so long as no other individual is harmed, kinda like the "pound of flesh nearest the heart" thing. Sadly, our society puts more value on an eagle's egg, than it does on a mother's child. I'd like to see at least the same respect and protection for both. Gay Marriage? Why not - lets just call it something other than marriage, in order to show a little respect for people who respect God's writings.

Lastly: "I’d like to see salaries raised for teachers." This has at its root another choice women should be given: where to send their children to school. Women in this country are denied that right because of "Churchophobia". A woman or man, gay or straight, in any community in this country should be able to say, " That school is better than the one my child is at. My child would do better there." And if that were the parent's choice, the local school board would take whatever funds were allocated for the education of the child that year, and give it to the school where the parent chose to send her child. We conservatives sometimes refer to this as a voucher system. Competition would increase, teachers could demand higher salaries, and then they could afford those high mileage cars, and the cost of fuel to put in them, all going to stimulate our economy so we could give bigger tax cuts to those who actually pay taxes for the rest of us!

Domestic policy has to be read and understood in order to be agreeable. I'm guessing Roger has heard a lot about the Bush administration's domestic policy, but he perhaps has not read much of the administration's domestic policy. We all need to make sure we are getting the facts before we choose to follow. As the war coverage in Iraq demonstrates, you cannot get facts from a source which has, at its heart, an agenda. Better to dig and be confused, than to agree and be proven wrong, I like to say. So lets agree to keep digging on these topics a while, shall we?

There you go, Roger. Hope it all made sense, or at least entertained you just a little bit!

Monday, October 20, 2003

Oil for Blood

So the US Senate says it needs Iraq to repay us for helping to rebuild their country. Sounds like a good idea, except that since the only thing Iraq has that can be sold to repay us is oil, that would make it a BLOOD FOR OIL deal, wouldn't it?

So, let's see, we launch an attack against Iraq based on fraud (Ted Kennedy) to take their oil (Michael Moore) based on evidence provided by UNSCOMM (William Jefferson Xxxxxxx). Now since we all support our troops, not our administration (Wesley Clark -No wait, we DO support the administration...just a minute...no, I was right, we DO NOT support the administration) we'll pay the troops, just not the ones who married Iraqi wives, or mentioned God in a public address, (Do I have to footnote, -er endnote those, too, or can you do a little research?), but we won't spend a dime on Iraq, because they can pay for it themselves, unless it's sold through Haliburton, cause we know rich American Oil dudes can't make any money on domestic oil, 'cause we make them pay too much to keep the environment clean...

Wait, I lost track of where I...

Oh, yeah, if we require the Iraqis to pay for this operation, we get to ask Kuawit for some money, too, and Lybia, and Liberia, and Afghanistan, and Russia, and France and Germany and, well, it seems a bit silly, now, doesn't it?

Anyway, what's REALLY silly is that we need to stabilize the region, right? So let's cough it up, OK? I mean, really, we spend as much on welfare, prisons, the UN, and we expect much, much less than the potential return in Iraq. Lets not make an insult out of this and require oil from the Iraqis to mingle with the blood already given by our sons and daughters. The gift we have given them already is much too much for them ever to repay.

Just like the left to put a dollar sign on that, too, eh?

Friday, October 17, 2003

Madeline Shows she's "Not So Bright"

Former Secretary of State Madeline "Not So Bright" follows closely on the heels of the Dixie Twits in criticizing our troops and administration in front of a foreign audience:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/031016/19/m40i.html

It's simply amazing the difference in decorum between the last administration and the one prior to that one. You'd be hard pressed to find a comment recorded by the Bush Administration which preceded Madame Allbright's which publicly criticized any policy being enacted by the Xxxxxxx Administration (we don't use profanity here) even though a lot of us were screaming for it at the time.

Nope, as lame and middle of the road (a bit left-leaning for my tastes) as the original Bush presidency was, the guy really had a sense of decency and propriety. His son has a bit of it, too.

It doesn't surprise me that Madeline would go around exhibiting her verbal diarrhea, as she has no more class than anyone else she used to work with or for.

It's no wonder she was so ineffective as Secretary of State. She wasn't qualified to be Secretary of the local Wal-Mart.

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Democrats At It Again

OK, I really mean they're at it still. Another hole to dig, another bone to chew. This time, the story is that revealing the name of a CIA operative was deliberately done to punish a correspondent for digging too deep.

K, it would be bad to reveal a person like that, just like it's bad to lie under oath, especially when the perjury is designed to prevent investigation of the one committing the perjury, and just like it's bad to allow missle targeting technology to be sold to China, just because they have a vested interest in your continued occupation of the executive mansion, just like it's bad to bomb aspirin factories in Sudan to draw attention from your legal woes. Yup, all of these are bad, illegal and downright shameful.

So I guess if three of the four don't "rise to the level of impeachment", the fourth doesn't, either, right? And if it's not an impeachable offense, why are we worried about it?

There are two axioms to watch for in politics: 1) When someone politics, always follow the money, and 2) When a Democrat points a finger, dig deep enought to find out when he was guilty of the same or worse.

I was once accused by a (former) friend of cheating on my wife, about a year after he confided to me that he had done that very thing to his own wife. I have to tell you, besides being shocked at his accusation, It occurred to me that the only reason he thought it possibble that I could do such a thing was because he had done such a thing. (P.S. I didn't do it, just so you all know.)

The only reason Democrats believe the Bush Administration could reveal the name of a CIA Operative for political gain is because the Dem's would do such a thing for political gain. Don't believe me? Don't worry, I'll do the digging for you.

Monday, September 22, 2003

Proveable Treason

Steven Den Beste at USS Clueless has a great dissertation explaining a lot of why I think Ted Kennedy is a traitor.