Kowabunga

Usually I would stay away from controversy when it comes to history, (exeption: continued refernces to Vietnam by politicians), however there is a quote in the following that needs to be addressed: From FoxNews:

Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war, a news report said Saturday.

"I understand that the bombing ended the war, and I think that it couldn't be helped," Kyodo News agency quoted Kyuma as saying in a speech at a university in Chiba, just east of Tokyo.

Kyuma's remarks drew immediate criticism from Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

"The U.S. justifies the bombings saying they saved many American lives," said Nobuo Miyake, 78, director-general of a group of victims living in Tokyo. "It's outrageous for a Japanese politician to voice such thinking. Japan is a victim."

It is the last paragraph in the above excerpt that I feel a need to address. Miyake is half-right. Yes, the use of two atomic bombs against Japan ended the war and saved American lives. I have read that the estimates of American lives saved to be about 500,000 (this may be total casualties, not just those killed). It was estimated that the invasion of Japan would have a casualty rate, for both sides, many times that of the Battle of Okinawa. It also shortened the war by at least a year, perhaps more. This would put a Japanese casualty rate somewhere around 2,000,000. That was actually figured into the reasoning for using the atomic bomb on Japan.

As for the final part of Miyake's statement, "Japan is a victim," let us remember that it was Japan that started the war with the United States, not the other way around, by bombing Pearl Harbor. It was also Japan that routinely executed prisoners of wars as well as civilian prisoners, such as took place on Wake Island prior to it's being retaken and in the Philippines where prisoners of war were executed by burning as well as during the Bataan and Sandakan Death Marches.

Posted by Sqotty at 6:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

As it has been in the news pretty much everywhere, the McKennedy Amnesty para Illegals was voted down yesterday on a procedural vote.

This time I took the time to send Senator Coleman (R-MN) a thank you note for his vote on killing this bill.

Any takers on how long before we see it resurface?

Tags:

McKennedy Amnesty Immigration Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 5:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Matt Drudge has posted this audio clip on youtube:

Kerry, speaking out against free speech, shows his ignorance on how free markets work. when the "Fairness" Doctrine was eliminated in the '80s, resulting in the birth of Talk Radio, there was little political discourse on the air waves, except for the left-wing tripe put out by taxpayer supported NPR an d the Public Broadcasting Corporation.

Let's face it: The left hates talk radio as it gets out the facts on what is going on in Congress and they have been unable to make headway in that field. Look at their attempt with Air America.

Except for a couple of markets where the leftist ranting is still on (like in Minnesota), it's pretty much dead air. Why? Because there isn't a market for the leftist/liberal/progressive/socialist (or what ever they call themselves these days) tripe on the air. That's one of the reasons that money was illegally shifted from a couple of New York charities early on to get it air America going.

Instead of competing openly in the arena of ideas, this is how the self-proclaimed "party of the people" operates: pushing government interference in eliminating opposing views.

If I didn't know any better, I would have mistaken Kerry's message for Hugo Chavez, Dictator of Venezuela.

It's about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Choice. Either we have the right to listen to what we ant, or we don't.

If Kerry's of the world have their way, how long will it take for them to extend this "doctrine" to the Internet?

Tags:

Kerry Free Speech Fairness Doctrine

Posted by Sqotty at 6:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

I sent the following note to Senatpor Coleman via his website:

Dear Senator Coleman:

A few weeks ago I was delighted that you voted against cloture on the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (aka McKennedy Amnesty Act). Now I am disappointed that you have supported cloture. I understand that you have aneeded amendment that may be added on to this legislation. Howeer you know as well as I do that any and all amendments may be stripped from the final bill during joint session.

This bill is a bad bill for many reasons, mnost specifically it allows any illegal alien to gain legalization with forged documents. Even if an amendment is added on by the Senate to require a secure passport be presented, that would likely be stripped away in joint session.

No set amendments can fix a bad bill, and this is an extremely bad bill.

I implore you to end your support of this legislation and opose it as you previously have done.

Thank you

Todd C. Hansen

We'll see if it does any good.

As for Amy Klobuchar, for what good it will do, I sent the following:

Dear Senator Klobuchar:

I am writing to you in regards to the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 now before the U.S. Senate.

I oculd go on for pages on why this is a bad piece of legsilation, however I think I will stick to one major point.

The requiremnet for legalization is a couple of easy to forge documents with which an illegal alien can then forge a new identity. At the very least, aliens wishing legalization under this act should be required to provide a secure passport with biometric data.

However, I recognize that even if the Senate were to approve an amendment to make such a requirement, there is a high likelihood that it will be stripped away during joint session.

No set of amendments can fix a bad bill, and this is a very bad bill that poses signifcant national security risks.

I implore you to opose this bill, regardless of the amendments attached to it.

Sincerely

Todd C. Hansen

I have no doubt that the only way to defeat this bill is here and now in the Senate. For some reason I wasn't surprised that it was borugh back to life so soon after its initial defeat.

Tags:

McKennedy Amnesty Immigration Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Either Paul Newman is a fool and ignoramus who doesn't know what he is talking about, or he is a serious leftwing Moonbat. Politico has an email be distributed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in which Newman uses scare-mongering tactics to get gullible Americans to give money in order to elect more anti-American Socialists to the Senate.

In it, Newman writes:

"It was one of my life's proudest achievements.

"More than the films, more than the awards - finding out that I was on Nixon's Enemies List meant that I was doing something right.

"Nixon didn't like my campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy. But then again, he didn't much care for debate, dissent, or the Constitution either.

"I was proud to stand with Democrats against an imperial president back then. And I am proud now to stand with a new generation of Democrats against a president who poses what I believe to be the biggest internal threat to American democracy in my lifetime.

"That's why, when I was asked to send this message on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), I quickly agreed. A Democratic Senate is the best defense against this administration. I am as frustrated as all of you that Congress hasn't made more progress on issues we care about here in 2007. But I also know that Democrats only have a 51-49 majority in the Senate - and that Republicans, with threats of filibusters and vetoes, have tried to block just about everything.

"We've got to preserve and strengthen our Senate majority in 2008, and the best way to do that is by supporting the DSCC. No other Democratic Party organization - not even the DNC - is focused exclusively on electing Democrats to the Senate.

"The DSCC is only $114,941 away from their crucial second quarter fundraising goal. They need you to get there.

"Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to make sure Democrats keep control of the United States Senate. Make a contribution now and a group of Democratic senators will match every single dollar you give, effectively doubling your contribution.

"You can take your pick of issues where Republicans are seriously damaging this country: Iraq, global warming, civil liberties. But I resent them most for how they've destroyed the American spirit by using xenophobia and fear to hold onto power.

"It's scare-mongering pure and simple, and it is the only thing Republicans have left to offer.

"We need to preserve and expand the slim 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, and we need to do the hard work to make it happen now.

"Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to make sure Democrats keep control of the United States Senate. Make a contribution now and a group of Democratic senators will match every single dollar you give, effectively doubling your contribution.

"One seat is all that separates Republicans from retaking the United States Senate. That's why the 2008 elections are so pivotal.

"The DSCC needs to raise $114,941 by June 30. I'm more than happy to help. I hope you'll join me.

"After all, the Senate hangs in the balance, with only one seat making all the difference.

"Let's do our best to keep it in Democratic hands."

There is also a video in which Newman sys that this White House is making America less strong. What has Newman been smoking?

In his hit piece he claims that Republicans are "seriously damaging this country," and then cites the war in Iraq, global warming, and civil liberties (I guess he is referring to the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform). He also purports that Republicans have "destroyed the American spirit by using xenophobia and fear to hold onto power." The "American spirit" by the liberl/progressive/socialists and the drugged-out hippies of the '60s that have taken over the Democratic party, not by Republicans.

What's some of the proofs on this? Easy: The Clinton Adminstration, along with his DNC cohorts in Congress gutted our intelligence agencies, as well as our military, during the '90s. They also treated Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaeda as being a law enforcement issue, and never took the threat seriously, including passing by an opportunity to have bin Ladin extradited to the U.S. End result: 9/11.

It was Democrat Jimmy Carter who handed Iran, at that time a staunch ally of the U.S. to the Ayatollahs and Mullahs, resulting in a tyrannical theocracy that is fueling terrorism and moving towards nuclear weapons.

Carter also hamstrung the nuclear energy industry by banning the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods, causing these spent, radio-active, fuel rods to be stockpiled as hazardous waste.

It was John Kerry who pushed the Winter Soldier campaign during the Vietnam War era and Democrats who abandoned our ally, South Vietnam, and surrendered South East Asia to communists, resulting in the brutal murder of millions of men, women and children.

It is Democrats who are pushing hardest to legalize millions of illegal aliens, rather than enforce out laws.

It is Democrats who are pushing to silence free speech on the radio waves by reinstating the "Fairness" Doctrine.

On Iraq, it is the Democrats that have sounded "retreat" and are pushing towards abandoning our fledgling ally, Iraq, which will result in chaos and a killing field that will dwarf what happened in Cambodia in 1975.

Democrats are also wrong on Global Warming, but that is because they worship at the altar of Al Gore rather than read the science on the subject and learn that current climate warming trend is a natural phenomenon, and not caused by mankind.

The real scare-mongers are the Democrats and their shills. They have done more damage to the American spirit, and done more to assault the Constitution in my lifetime than the GOP has done since it formed in the 1850s.

If Paul Newman serious believes that Republicans have destroyed the American Spirit, then he must not have any clue as to what the American spirit actually is.

Congratulations, Paul, you are the latest recipient of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

Paul Newman DSCC Democrat Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks like I am not alone in my viewpoint of Comrade Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela. This s form the Washington Post:

Insecurity, "malignant narcissism" and the need for adulation are driving Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's confrontation with the United States, according to a new psychological profile.

Eventually, these personality traits are likely to compel Chavez to declare himself Venezuela's president for life, said Dr. Jerrold Post, who has just completed the profile for the U.S. Air Force.

Chavez won elections for a third term last December. Since then he has stepped up his anti-American rhetoric, vowed to accelerate a march towards "21st Century socialism" and suggested that he intends to stay in power until 2021 -- a decade beyond his present term.

But Post -- who profiled foreign leaders in a 21-year career at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and now is the director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University -- doubts that Chavez plans to step down even then. "He views himself as a savior, as the very embodiment of Venezuela," Post said in an interview.

"He has been acting increasingly messianic and so he is likely to either get the constitution rewritten to allow for additional terms or eventually declare himself president-for-life."

Post sounds like he is on the same page as I am, or maybe it's the other way around. Comrade Chavez, in his crusade to turn Venezuela into a Cuba look-alike, is revealing his true colors. It was just a few days ago that Chavez stated he was ready for war with the United States, and made some very colorful, and wrong, accusations of what the U.S. is doing.

Meanwhile, Chavez is taking steps to seize the oil producing assets of ExxonMobile and ConocoPhillips. From FT.com:

Venezuela's state-owned oil company is taking over multibillion-dollar projects owned by ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, Rafael Ramirez, the country's energy minister, said.

The action was being taken following a failure to agree the terms of a handover of operations in the oil-rich Orinoco belt, said Mr Ramirez.

The oil groups refused to sign an agreement on how the Venezuela's state-owned oil company PdVSA would take majority control of heavy crude oil projects in the Orinoco belt, which are valued at a total of at least $25bn.

The loss of its Venezuelan operations would be a particular blow to ConocoPhillips. Its operations in the Orinoco belt were valued at about $6bn and accounted for about 10 per cent of the company's reserve base and 4 per cent of its worldwide production.

Mr Ramirez said PdVSA was increasing its share in the four projects, which lie above some of he largest heavy crude oil reserves in the world, from an average of 40 per cent to 78 per cent.

Chavez has been pusing to "nationalize" (fancy word for confiscate) the oil industry projects in Venezuela. Some companies have managed to reach an agreement turning over majority control to Chavez. ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobile have both refused as offers are sub-market value. In other words, Chavez is taking control by offering pennies on the dollar for what these companies have invested in Venezuela.

Both companies are reported to still be in negotiations, however I suspect that they will be forced to the table and sign some losing agreement, or they will lose their entire investment.

Quite frankly, if I were the head of these companies, I would push for a total buyout and let Venezuela screw things up.

As for Chavez, it has been clear to me for sometime that he is a megalomaniac. It is good to know that there are people with some pull who are recognizing that as well.

Tags:

Chavez Venezuela Exxon Conoco

Posted by Sqotty at 6:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Senate has voted to move ahead with the McKennedy Amnesty bill, also known as the Imimigration Reform Act of 2007.

I am very disappointed that both of my Senators, Coleman and Klobuchar, voted for cloture. I am especially disappointed in Coleman as previously he voted against cloture.

The question now is: how many people will be rushing the Border in the McKennedy Race For Amnesty?

Tags:

Amnesty McKennedy Immigration Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Ever notice how people on the hard-left like to twist the facts so that they resemble their own perception of reality? Richard Cohen wrote this for the Washington Post:

There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with George Bush's approval ratings abysmally low; with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular; with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate; and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion ( Mitt Romney's Mormonism), the next president is bound to be a Democrat. History begs to differ.

Is assessment of the current state of the GOP is fairly accurate, but a little short-sighted. I don't think religion is as big an issue to most people who vote (or may vote) GOP as some of the leftist pundits believe. Or want us to believe. There are less divisions over social issues in the GOP than in the DNC, and the issue of immigration is probably going to cost some incumbents votes during the next election cycle, regardless of party affiliation.

What is interesting is the historical comparison he makes with the current political topography and 1972 when Nixon was re-elected in a land-slide election. One point he makes is comparing Vietnam to Iraq (why am I not surprised) and how it seemed that no one knew how to get us out of Vietnam, and the general electorate did not like the ideas presented by the Party of Surrender, I mean the Democrats, on how to end that war. I guess his driving point with that part of his comparison is that many people do not like the ideas put forth by leading Democrats and the advocates of capitulation to terrorists. There, he would be right.

But he goes on to compare Nixon and his opponent McGovern to the 2004 match-up of Bush and Kerry. There Cohen shows that he is a bit of a loon. He equates Bush's Air National Guard service to being a "slacker," ignoring the fact that Bush volunteered for a program called Palace Alert, which, had he been qualified on the F-102 Delta Dagger (one of the toughest jet fighters to fly) and accepted into the program, Bush would have been sent to Vietnam as a combat pilot. This is not the kind of thing a slacker, like Bill Clinton, would do.

He also compares McGovern to Kerry, however, I don't believe that is a good comparison either. McGovern is a better man than Kerry can ever hope to be, despite the decorations Kerry was awarded. Kerry, unlike McGovern, testified to Congress that our military operating in Vietnam committed many war crimes. "Winter Soldier." Kerry also claimed that he had gone into Cambodia on secret missions, yet not only has he failed to prove his claims, these claims have been disproved by those with whom he served.

…during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift boat veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked.

The Swift Boat Veterans were made up of men who served with Kerry in Vietnam. They did paint a very unattractive picture of Kerry. How much of a contribution they made to Kerry's failure in the polls is debatable. I believe Kerry's Senatorial record did himself more damage than the Swifties managed to dish out. Remember, it was Kerry who said "I voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it," in reference to funding that would buy, among other things, body armor for troops serving in Iraq. The Swiftie message was that Kerry was unfit to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. As men who served with him during war, I'd say they would have a pretty good idea of what kind of C-in-C Kerry would have made.

"Paint Kerry as a quivering liar"? One word: Cambodia.

Kerry also claimed at one point to have thrown his medals over the White House fence as part of anti-war protest, then later claimed they were somebody else's medals, and that he only tossed his ribbons over the fence in protest. Which is it? Does it matter? The ribbons are considered to be the equivalent to the actual medals. Does discarding the one reflect a rejection of the other? Yes! Is Kerry just an opportunist, shifting his position to fit the times? Like volunteering for duty in Vietnam before the anti-war movement took hold, then joining the anti-war movement after his discharge from the Navy. The same Kerry who waffled on voting for funding our troops serving in Iraq. The same Kerry who pushed for gutting our Intelligence Agencies during the '90s, brining us 9/11.

Besides, the measure of a President is not how they performed in war, but how they have served the electorate in elected office.

The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way. And while most Americans would like the war to end, they do not favor a precipitous withdrawal and neither have they forgotten Sept. 11, 2001 -- the entirety of Giuliani's case for the presidency, after all.

Facts are tenacious things. The Democrats have proven themselves to be soft on national security at every turn, including when it comes to securing our borders. Not since LBJ have they had a serious leader when it comes to National Security. "Scurrilous" tactics are not necessary to get that point across. While we're at it, let's remember that Democrats are also soft on crime. The only thing they are big on is taxing working Americans into oblivion.

As for the war in Iraq, sure we would all like to see it end. The difference between myself, and many people I know, and the leftists now in control of the DNC is how…I want to see it end in victory for the U.S., our allies, and especially for the people of Iraq. The lefties want us to abandon the people of Iraq and let the terrorists and Islamo-Fascists seize power and turn Iraq into a puppet state of Iran.

Ask yourself this: which is the better way to end the war in Iraq? There are only two possibilities, and the one that we may eventually get will be diced in the next couple of years.

As for Cohen, I have to wonder which way he wants the war to end as well. Some how, I suspect he likes the idea of surrender. But then, I could be wrong.

We don't know who will be leading the charge in either party at this early stage. The field of candidates on the DNC end are all on the side of surrendering to terrorists, while most of the GOP candidates are for victory. So, once you've figured out how you would like to see the war in Iraq end, ask the candidates how they would like to see it end. And do the answers match?

Tags:

Cohen Kerry Bush Nixon Election Iraq Vietnam

Posted by Sqotty at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am stunned that the a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.startribune.com/commentary/story/1267828.html">Star Tribune would publish a propaganda piece for a terrorist organization. No, I am not speaking of al-Qaeda, but Hamas. This is sickening. If I were a subscriber to the Red Star Tribune I would cancel my subscription. As it is, I check out the online edition only, therefore no subscription to cancel.

The commentary piece is by a Palestinian named Ahmed Yousef, and he has a lot to say about how it is America's fault that things are lousy for the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian National Authority apparently joins the list of elected governments targeted or toppled over the past century by interventionism: nations that had the courage to take American rhetoric at face value and elect whomever they would. No doubt some in Washington persist in the fiction that the United States is following a "road map" to democracy for Palestinians, just as others believe the Iraq war has been a sincere exercise in nation-building. Neoconservative strategists have miscalculated, however, and Hamas is stronger than ever.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Although they are not international in nature, they have used terrorist attacks against Israel for decades, suicide bombings have become the weapon of choice for Hamas, murdering children and the elderly. When Israel retaliates by eliminating their terrorist thug leaders, they cry "foul."

Some critics raise the red flag of "Al-Qaida" and say that Hamas and parliament are a stalking horse for Salafi jihadists. I defy them to demonstrate one instance in which Hamas' military structure has struck against any force outside the theater of the occupation. The struggle has always been against the Israeli agenda of ethnic cleansing and conquest. Hamas is a movement of Palestinian liberation and nationalism -- Islamist, yes, but in the sea of contending faiths that is the homeland, where is the sin in loving one's creed?

Al-Qaeda like? Iffy, but certainly a "stalking horse for Salafi jihadists' is a fair assessment, although they are more public than "stalking."

As for the "military structure" of Hamas, if they really were a legitimate military, they would stop targeting school buses and shopping malls and focus on strictly military targets. However, they are nothing but a bunch of cowardly terrorists bent on murdering innocents.

This guy falsely claims that Israel is carrying out an "agenda of ethnic cleansing and conquest." If this were true, there wouldn't be any Palestinians for Israel would have succeeded at that already. Instead, the Palestinian population continues to grow faster than the population of Israel.

Further, it is the Palestinians, through organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others that have been pushing an agenda of ethnic cleansing against the people of Israel. Israel has had to deal with mortar, rocket, and suicide bombings nearly everyday for the last six or seven years.

Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve. Those who warn of "failed states" and "Hamastan" as a breeding ground for terrorism forget where blame for failure belongs -- at the feet of the American administration, which has chosen to isolate the elected government.

The Palestinian people could have achieved their goals of self-determination, etc. decades ago. They could even achieve such today, immediately, if they had the leadership and the will to live in peace with their neighbors. However, the majority has been unwilling to accept a two-state solution, and many who claim they support such, are merely talking out of the sides of their mouth. This includes Hamas.

And they blame us for their problems, when it is clearly something they are in total control to achieve, or, as they have chosen, flush down the toilet.

The Bush administration never intended to honor the outcome of fair and transparent elections in the occupied territories. The embargo, designed to punish the electorate for its choice, was the first step toward crushing new democratic institutions. The second has been to find collaborators for the American agenda and to supply them with advisers, funds and weapons for their campaign of destabilization. The final step will be to truncate Gaza from any proposed Palestinian state and make it a de facto prison for all "undesirable" aspects of Palestinian nationalism. This will culminate in provocations designed to trigger a military response from Israel, which will "justify" a war on Gazans. This would be tragic for all concerned, and the international community, especially the Arab League, must not allow such an outcome.

The U.S. rightfully cut of support of the Palestinian Authority as it is run by a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of a close ally, Israel. The American people should not be expected to have their tax dollars, money that I work hard to earn, handed over to a pack of murdering thugs. If the Palestinian people had chosen to elect leaders instead of terrorists, things would be different. And that is the bottom line: Palestinians need leaders, real leaders, who are willing to step up to the plate and actually lead their people to peace and prosperity, rather than down the road of terrorism and destruction.

I guess I should not be surprised that the Red Star Tribune would publish this piece of tripe. The editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune, and other newspapers across the country seem to think that terrorists are the good guys, while America is the bad guy. They must be deranges.

Tags:

Hamas Israel Terrorists

Posted by Sqotty at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, my home state) announced on "Fox News Sunday" that she would consider reinstating the Fairness Doctrine on broadcast radio. This move would stifle conservative talk radio. I guess that in Feinstein's world "silence is golden."

Feinstein's reasoning stems from the ongoing debate on Immigration Reform and the current legislation before the Senate: The McKennedy Amnesty Act, or, as it is otherwise known as, The Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

From UPI:

"This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."

In Feinstein's example she sites a few reasons, including that talk radio is inciting Americans to react to this legislation without being fully informed, and referring to it as "amnesty." If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck, and the proposal being floated on immigration reform is amnesty.

If she had pulled out the half-baked notions presented in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as an example of why the fairness doctrine needs to be returned, I'd say she has a point. I still would not want it brought back.

As for the "flaws in our broken (immigration) system," if it is broke it is because of left-wingnuts refusing to enforce our existing laws and our Federal Government not taking action against communities that declare themselves sanctuaries. Instead of cutting off Federal funding to these "sanctuary" cities, they just let them continue on.

The border fence which was approved last fall is yet to have serious work performed on it.

Meanwhile, with the promise of new amnesty, there is a bigger run for the border to get in to the U.S. while the getting is good.

The bottom line is: enforcement begins at home.

Before any new immigration reform act should be considered, let alone implemented, Congress should first secure our borders (North and South), put in place a serious means to allow employers to filter out illegal aliens based on social security numbers presented (the Feds can implement a database lookup to verify that the name and SSN provided to an employ in fact match, and if they do not, that person is denied a job and reported to the INS).

Before any illegal alien is put on any path of legalization, they must first pass any and all background and health checks that a legal immigrant must pass. (I suspect that with the way things are currently, there will be a lot of "wiggle room" to allow exemptions to the health/security checks.) If they fail, they are denied reentry into the U.S. Further, they should have to prove that they have in fact resided in the U.S. using the same timelines and documentation as was required in the 1986 Amnesty bill.

As for the "Fairness Doctrine," that is nothing more than a Hugo Chavez like tactic to silence opposition, something that is the antithesis of free speech.

Tags:

Feinstein Fairness Doctrine Free Speech

Posted by Sqotty at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Charles W. Lindberg passed away yesterday. He was the last survivor of the first team of Marines to raise the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima.

The flag raising was photographed by Sgt. Lou Lowery, however it is the second flag raising, photographed by Abe Rosenthal of the second flag team that people think of when this historic flag raising took place during the heat of battle.

FoxNews and Strib:

"Two of our men found this big, long pipe there," he said in an interview with The Associated Press in 2003. "We tied the flag to it, took it to the highest spot we could find and we raised it.

"Down below, the troops started to cheer, the ship's whistles went off, it was just something that you would never forget," he said. "It didn't last too long, because the enemy started coming out of the caves."

Lindberg was wounded during the Battle for Iwo Jima and received both the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.

Tags:

Iwo Jima Lindberg WW2 Marines

Posted by Sqotty at 8:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It seems that over the weekend off Comrade Chavez noticed and decided to give me something to write about this morning. Yesterday, the Dictator of Venezuela announced that he was ready for war with the United States. He claimed that the U.S. is already executing a media, propaganda and economic war against his totalitarian regime. Somehow I missed the announcement that we were carrying out such a campaign against him.

From FoxNews:

Dressed in olive green fatigues and a red beret, Chavez spoke inside Tiuna Fort - Venezuela's military nerve-center-before hundreds of uniformed soldiers standing alongside armored vehicles and tanks decorated with banners reading: "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"

"We must continue developing the resistance war, that's the anti- imperialist weapon. We must think and prepare for the resistance war everyday," said Chavez, who has repeatedly warned that American soldiers could invade Venezuela to seize control of the South American nation's immense oil reserves.

U.S. officials reject claims that Washington is considering a military attack. But the U.S. government has expressed concern over what it perceives as a significant arms build-up here.

Ah, yes, he is just pumping up his people in the fashion of such tyrants as Castro, Hussein, Stalin, Mao, and that nutter with the little mustache that wrought so much terror in the world.

Ho many times over the past couple of years has he claimed that the U.S. wants to bring him down and topple his government? How often has he refereed to our as "evil" and "the devil?"

If we wanted to carry out an economic attack on his country, all we would have to do is stop importing oil from there. Not likely to happen, unless we open up ANWR and more off-shore drilling. Then, in a couple of years we can tell Chavez to stick his oil up his, well, you get the idea.

Comrade Chavez, who idolizes Fidel Castro, has in recent months confiscated oil companies and has shut down Venezuela's oldest broadcasting station (so much for free press in that country) and has threatened to "nationalize" other business sectors. Such actions will divide the people of his country, at least the ones who are paying attention to what he is doing. We don't have to carry out a campaign of psychological warfare against Chavez.

What is of concerned is his purchase of over $3 Billion in arms from our "ally" Russia, including 24 SU-30 Sukhoi jet fighters. Chavez also announced that he is considering buying anti-aircraft missile batteries and submarines. These are a serious concern if he is able to make these purchases.

Quite frankly, I believe that Chavez overrates his importance. He hasn't murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people (like Saddam Hussein), or is executing acts of terrorism on a global scale. Okay, he has been cavorting with terrorists, like Ahmadinejad (did I spell that right?), so maybe there is some "guilt by association." Maybe.

Eventually, I hope, that his move to eliminating free speech in Venezuela will bring about his downfall and the people of Venezuela will regain their natural rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Tags:

Hugo Chavez Venezuela Castro

Posted by Sqotty at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune has a piece by Brian Rambert that is, once again, calling an end of the debate on the causes of global warming and silencing those of us who do not accept the theory put forth by the hard-left that it is due to the activities of man rather than the natural cycle of the Earth and Sun.

The ethical challenge for journalists and journalism (as opposed to infotainment personalities in "the media") is stark. It means accepting what the best available science has now concluded is fact about global warming -- that it's happening and human activity is an aggravating if not principal cause -- and pulling the plug on spurious "debate" engendered by conservative ideologues, much like what credible news organizations have done with Holocaust-deniers and creationists.

In the case of major newspapers like the Star Tribune and local television news outlets like KSTP, WCCO, KARE and KMSP, this would mean largely if not completely ignoring the vocal minority railing away at the work and findings of the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If the talk radio choir wants to have a "debate" among itself, fine. But for journalists the debate phase has ended and the story now is, "What to do?"

Lambert is likening those who have looked at the issue of global warming and determined that it is a natural and unstoppable phenomenon with holocaust-deniers and creationists. He does not put forth any science that counters the claims that climate change is a natural cycle. Zero. Only repeats the mantra of Al Gore and it is carbon dioxide that is the cause.

Serious journalists cannot honor their professional commitment to truth while simultaneously pandering to political ideologues who are substituting campaign-style spin and misinformation for science.

Here he is right, but for the wrong reasons. The substantial amount of science that has been and is still being performed by serious climate scientists continues to point to the current warming trend of the Earth's climate has being natural and solar driven. Avery and Singer compiled a lot of this material in their recent book, Unstoppable Global Warming.

Does this guy, Lambert, read any science? Or is he just another puppet of the global warming moonbats like Al Gore?

The Star Tribune has shown its ignorance on the issue, as well as its bias, in having published this piece by Lambert.

Tags:

Star Tribune Unstoppable Global Warming Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I find it both disturbing and ironic that the liberal/progressive-left seem to believe that they must have control of the political conversation, and when they don't, they insist that there is unfairness. So it is with talk radio. Think Progress (must be an oxymoron) has put forth a piece in response to a report published by The Center for American Progress and Free Press (another oxymoronic name) on why Conservative Talk Radio needs to be stopped.

The new report - entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" - raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

No entity, whether it is commercial broadcasting companies, print media, or taxpayer supported Public Broadcasting stations serve "the listening needs off all Americans." The reason is that not everyone wants to listen to the same thing.

For instance, I prefer to listen to classical music on the radio, yet it is darned difficult, short of NPR, to find a station that plays classical music. And the problem with NPR is that I have to either put up with their left-wing bias, their frequent pledge drives (they get enough of my money through taxation) or, worse still, Garrison Keiler. Thus I end up changing stations.

I don't like most of the rock stations for some similar reasons: most of the "on air personalities," what used to be called disc jockeys, are crude, rude, and obnoxious. There are some exceptions, but not enough to make me want to stay tuned for more than a couple of tunes before switching stations. The same is true with country stations, but their DJs are actually not as obnoxious as those on many rock stations or Garrison Keiler.

I've listened to Air America on a number of occasions and found the discourse to be rude, crude, ignorant and one-sided. This is probably why it hasn't even made a dent into the realm of talk radio.

Conservative Talk Radio, with few exceptions, is intelligent, concise and, unlike Air America, kid friendly (no crude language). It is also a sharp counter-point to the leftist controlled, taxpayer supported, NPR and public broadcasting in general.

They produced some fancy statistics;

While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America's airwaves. Some key findings:

- In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

- Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk - 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

- 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Gotta wonder, what is the source of their data, and did include the hundreds (or is it thousands) of ours of leftist broadcasting that takes place on NPR and the "public" broadcasting system.

The next part is the meat of their argument:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

What they are claiming is that the FACT that the free market economics has worked in favor of conservative talk radio and the resulting failure of Air America, they would rather blame it on bad regulatory controls. In other words, since they can't win in a free market and get their ideas out, they want to take control of the airwaves in order to squash opposing views.

The bottom line is: since they can't compete in the free market based on their ideas, they need to come up with a new strategy to short-circuit free choice.

Tags:

NPR Talk Radio Free Press

Posted by Sqotty at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

It seems that Global Warming is becoming a favorite topic of mine as of late. Two new pieces published this week help shed some light on the growing debate on whether (or not) the current warming trend is man-caused.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, is proving himself, once again, to be a voice of reason in the ongoing debate on climate change. This is from the Financial Times:

Mr Klaus writes that "global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem" and the issue "is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature."

He's right on the money. There are a vast number of people out there swallowing whole the bilge that the current warming trend is being caused by man's dumping of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. The liberal-left are touting it as a means to gain power/control over the world populations. No surprise really, from the anti-freedom crowd.

This particular piece gets better.

I ask myself several questions. Let's put them in the proper sequence:

o Is global warming a reality?

o If it is a reality, is it man-made?

o If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say "globally", better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?

o If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything - within the range of current proposals - to be done just now?

Surprisingly, we can say yes - with some degree of probability - only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

I am in agreement there, although anyone who knows me wouldn't be surprised by that.

After reading a lot of material on the topic, from Satanic Gases to Unstoppable Global Warming and numerous articles floating around, it is clear to me that the current warming trend is part of the natural climate cycle that the Earth goes through. In fact, I didn't have to read all of that material; just go back to your high school science classes and the topic of the various ice ages the Earth has gone through does the job.

Klaus also correctly points out that since modern computer models cannot with any certainty predict the weather two weeks from now, how can we rely upon computer models to predict what the Earth's climate might be like a hundred years from now? They can't! Yet people like Al "Carbon-Credit" Gore want you to believe that these models can predict the future. I bet I can do at least as well with a crystal ball.

Meanwhile, on Canada's Financial Post, R. Timothy Patterson writes:

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

The piece gets into some details of the research he lead on core samples in the Pacific Northeast as well as the role of sun spot activity, the solar wind, and cosmic rays.

It's a darn good piece and is part of a series being published by the Financial Times on the Global Warming debate.

He ends the piece by mentioning that there is a likelihood that the climate will swing again, this time with temperatures dropping and a repeat of the mantra of the '70s that there was a new ice age coming. It probably will not be another ice age, however I bet that the loons on the left will claim it is a result of efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions and not the natural change in solar activity.

Tags:

Carbon Dioxide Science Klaus

Posted by Sqotty at 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews had this report:

A missing computer backup tape containing personal information on state employees and family members also holds the names and Social Security numbers of 225,000 taxpayers, Gov. Ted Strickland announced Wednesday.

The tape, stolen last week from a state intern's car, contained information on taxpayers who have not cashed state income tax refund checks issued in 2005, 2006 and through May 29, 2007, Strickland revealed in what has become a nearly daily release of newfound information since the first disclosure about the tape Friday. The list includes checks that were cashed after May 29.

In addition, the tape includes the names and Social Security numbers of 602 lottery winners who have yet to cash their winning tickets and 2,488 Ohioans who have yet to cash checks for unclaimed funds payments, Strickland said. It also holds the names and bank account numbers for approximately 650 to 1,000 electronic funds transfers that weren't completed because they were bounced back by banking institutions.

Am I the only one sick of these things happening? What was a State intern doing in possesion of a computer backup tape? The piece claims it was a standard security praution to take the tape home? That's crazy! The intern left it in an unlocked car!

No sane employer would set up a security measure of "take the tape home," so why is the State of Ohio claiming such. Responsible data centers have contracts with outside vendors who pick up such backup tapes and lock them in a vault. Why isn't that the practice with this Ohio State data center?

Now the taxpayers are stuck footing the bill to the tune of at least $700,000 due to this intern's unacceptaple negligence. Is the manager who made the decision to use this "practice" still working for the state or has he been fired with cause; and what about the intern?

On the upside, this public exposure of Ohio's negligent safe-guarding of private/sensitive data is forcing them to change their idiotic policy and farm the storage of backups with an offsite vender.

Posted by Sqotty at 6:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

That is the name of the opinion piece in which Michael Evans writes about Jimmy Carter and the disastrous policies he implemented that wrought the problems in the Middle East of today. It seems we have a lot to thank former president Jimmy Carter for, and Evans scores his points accurately and concisely. This is a must read piece.

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"

It was Carter who pressured the Shah of Iran to release political dissidents and ease censorship, which in less troubled times would make since, but not at that time for Iran. And not those particular dissidents. As Evans points out, "Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter." He is right about that.

Evans outlines a lot of issues we still have to deal with thanks to Carter.

The Iranian revolution that replaced the pro-Western Shah of Iran with the totalitarian Islamo-Facist Ayatollah Khomeini was only the beginning. It was also during Carter's administration that the Iran-Iraq War broke out, resulting in millions of dead and wounded. It was also at this time that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and marked the rise of Osama bin Ladin and the foundation for al-Qaeda was laid.

Carter's response to crisis? He made an ineffectual attempt at obtaining the release of our embassy people held hostage by Iranian terrorists in the name of Khomeini. He boycotted the Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. He believed that every crisis can be resolved by diplomacy alone. Such a mindset is what resulted in World War II and the murder of some six million Jews in the holocaust. It is this mindset, instilled throughout the Democratic Party, that resulted in two aircraft being driven into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people, while a third was crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth slammed into a farm field. That day could have been far worse if it had not been for the courage of the passengers on that fourth airliner.

Thanks a lot Jimmy.

Tags:

Jimmy Carter Iran Iraq War Terrorism al-Qaeda bin Ladin Khomeini

Posted by Sqotty at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Live Earth concerts scheduled for July are reported to be making headway in reducing, but not eliminating, carbon emissions in relation to the concerts. There is a report on it on the Reuters website.

In the article, Yusef Robb of Live Earth outlines some of their plans, like making a choice between "dirty" lightbulbs and "greener "lightbulbs. His words, not mine. Franlkly, if the lightbulb is dirty, just dust it off. But that isn't what he means. He is talking about the amount of electricity used to power the bulb, and how much carbon emissions that would account for.

I'm all for using energy efficient lightbulbs. I have a lot of them in my house (nearly all of my light fixtures are equipped with fluorescent bulbs…it is easier to count the ones that aren't so equipped). Power to them for going that direction.

They have also hired a number of "green" consultants to help reduce the carbon footprint of their concerts. According to the article one venue has contracted for "green electricity" which the article notes as being wind and solar. Gotta wonder if they are contracting a "green" electrical company, which routinely supplements their power supplies with nuclear and/or coal/natural gas generators?

They are also attempting how to best run their generators on biodiesel, despite the following article by Steven Milloy recently published on FoxNews:

a study published in Chemistry and Industry, a journal of the Society of the Chemical Industry, reported that biodiesel, another alternative motor vehicle fuel, "could increase rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional diesel."

According to the media release, researchers compared the emission of greenhouse gases by the two fuels across their overall life cycles from production to combustion in cars.

Though the results showed that biodiesel (derived from rapeseed grown on dedicated farmland) emits nearly the same amount of carbon dioxide as conventional diesel when burned in an engine, growing rapeseed emits significant levels of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), which is 200 to 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Sounds pretty darn Earth-saving green to me. NOT!

But the biggest carbon emission problem will be the performers and crews traveling to the venues, most likely by carbon emitting private jets and limousines, not to mention the predicted millions of people (they are expecting 1 million attendees at Rio alone) who have to get to the venues some how, and no doubt many of them will be traveling either by air or car to get to the cities where the concerts will be held.

I can't even begin to imagine how much carbon and other pollutants (is the smoke from their joints a green house gas?) will be dumped into the atmosphere in the name of "Stop Global Warming," but I bet there is someone working on figuring it out. Maybe Steven Milloy will do the job for us.

Of course, they could be buying out the market of carbon credits courtesy of Al gore and his UK based company dealing in the darn things.

Tags:

Al Gore Live Earth Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I ran across a brilliant opinion piece by non-other than legendary rocker Ted Nugent. It begins simply enough by taking another legendary rocker, Paul McCartney, to task for firing roadies for the minor "offense" (if you are a nutter vegetarian) of eating a hamburger. I always thought that the folks on the left were all about free choice? Yet McCartney, who is a hard-core vegetarian, has to force his vegan ways on the people he employs.

Nugent is right, in more ways than one, when he points out the whole agenda of PETA and their supporters is to ban the consumption of meat. They want to take away OUR right to choose what we eat.

If those of us who love a good barbecued steak every now and then, or a rack of babyback ribs, were to try and force our meat eating ways on the vegetarians among us, there would be such a hue and cry that it would be deafening. Yet when a radical vegetarian can fire employs for eating meat, silence is golden.

But the party of choice is not the Democrats, nor are the hard-left liberals all that keen on free-will.

They want to take away our right to drive the kind of vehicles we drive in the name of protecting the environment, falsely claiming that carbon emissions is the cause of global warming (which is a natural cycle of the Earth's climate, not caused by man).

They do not want us to be able to choose between eating in restaurants or going to bars that allow smoking versus those that do not. They take away that right through smoking bans locally, or at state level as has been done in my native California and Minnesota (begins Oct. 2007) where I now live. Yet those of us who are conservatives, and many of us who are non-smokers, like myself, would not force others to dine out only in smoke filled rooms.

They want to take away our right to defend ourselves and our families, making all of us victims by forcing our cities to be "gun-free" zones, where only government and criminals are armed. Yet, as Nugent pointed out, conservatives would never dare to force someone to carry a gun who does not want to.

What I like best from the piece is this passage:

Recently, Danny Glover, an otherwise fine actor, embarrassingly abused his uniquely American freedoms by siding with the communist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to finance what clearly appears to be an anti-American propaganda film. Nice.

Meanwhile, right there in that communist country, old Hugo is shutting down an entire media network for daring to challenge his heavy handed, corrupt, dictatorial policies.

This is a leader who has proudly sided with terrorist support groups, and Danny Glover gives him a big hug.

Cindy Sheehan also gave hugs and kisses, okay maybe not kisses, to the Dictator of Venezuela.

There are also many folks on the hard left that think Castro is just peachy-keen as well. And they call Bush evil.

Nugent nails the hard-left dead-center when he wrote:

As for the American left: One hears the words of Mao Tse-Tung come broiling out of the mouths of its heroes, when Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton et al unflinchingly push for "redistribution of wealth."

They call themselves the party of tolerance, yet the hard-left, including the Clintons, Kennedy, Obama, and Al Gore, are anything but tolerant. They don't want you to have the ability to decide how you should live.

Tags:

Ted Nugent McCartney Chavez

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

When the leadership of the United nations was handed over to Ban Ki-moon, there was a lot of hope that we would see a change in the attitude within the U.N. towards the U.S.A. It looks like we're being proved wrong. From Breitbart:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

According to Ban Ki-moon, the Darfur conflict, which has raged on for several years now, is to be blamed on "global warming," which in turn is blamed on carbon emissions, which, according to the hard-left and their lackeys in the media and political arena, is all America's fault. Let's not blame all of the corrupt governments in that region of the world, or that this is more of a religiously motivated cleansing.

Meanwhile, Al "I invented the Internet" Gore has unavailed his new favorite wine. It turns out he is so upset that the media is focused more on Paris "I don't want to go to jail" Hilton and her bouncing in and out of the pokey, Gore has taken to complaining to the Sun that it just isn't fair.

He believes we have just TEN YEARS to begin saving the planet before it is too late.

But he struggles to get his message across when TV networks are donating the majority of their airtime to American socialite Paris Hilton's stint behind bars.

He goes on to talk about his proposed "Save The Earth" concerts that will be responsible for dumping untold tens of thousands of carbon into the atmosphere, the very gas that he claims in his factoid "An Inconvenient Truth" is the cause of the current climate warming trend. Let's see, we're going to save the Earth by polluting even more with carbon-dioxide? Tell me again, Al, how does that work?

And then there is this from News.com:

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

The question now is, how will Al Gore account for these trends? Or is he so full of hot air that he is a one man global warming machine?

Tags:

Al Gore Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Schwarzenegger may end taking some heat for remarks made at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. From the SF Chronicle:

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said.

I don't think I would have used the word "forced" in his talk if it were me making the statement. It is more accurate to say that if you are immersed in a language you will learn it faster. Saying "forced" implies you have no choice. There is always a choice.

Other than the word choice, the Governator is absolutely correct. If immigrants who do not already speak English come here and are fully immersed in the English language, not only will they become fluent much more quickly, they will also be more likely to assimilate into the American culture. Both of these are good things.

As a point of fact, when I was in sixth grade, many moons ago, and before bilingual education became the thing of the day, there was a Spanish girl in my class. On day one she didn't know any English. By the end of the school year she was nearly fluent. You don't achieve that kind of English proficiency through bilingual education.

Tags

Schwarzenegger Governator English bilingual education

Posted by Sqotty at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Frater's gang have posted Al Franken's first quarter 2007 campaign finance report. These reports to the FEC are public information and contain a great deal of information about who is backing a candidate, in this case, Franken.

Many of those contributing big bucks to the Frank-N-Furter for U.S. Senate are really not a surprise and include such far-lefties as: Tom Hanks, bill Maher, and Paul Newman. We'll set aside the fact that a lot of the campaign contributions Frank-N-Furter is receiving are from people who don't live in Minnesota and won't get to vote for him - unless they happen to visit the Minnesota on election day and find someone to vouch for them as living here.

What gets my goat is the two entries on page 198: Leonard Nimoy, Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame, has given $4,000 to Frank-N-Furter. I didn't know Spock lives in Beverly Hills. I'm waiting for Google Earth, as much as I think it is invasive of people's privacy, to include Beverly Hills. Just so I can get a better view.

I always figured that Spock was Democrat, but I didn't realized that he was a far-left leftie who would support Al Frank-N-Furter. Egads Mr. Spock, how could you?

It get's better…there is a large contribution from the COO of a company that sells sex toys! I wonder if their contribution came in the form of inflatable sheep. Gives me an idea for a story.

Tags:

Al Franken FEC Frank-N-Furter Spock Nimoy

Posted by Sqotty at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions