Kowabunga

Chickendove filmmaker Brian de Palma has shocked Venice audiences with his latest attack on the military, Redacted. Instead of making a film about the heroism of the men and women who have served our country honorably and well (unlike de Palma), de Palma instead chose as his subject matter a rape and killing that took place in Iraq.

This is not to say that all of our troops serve honorably without fail. We have the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is an example, among others. Black chapters in our history.

From Reuters:

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

There are far more examples of heroism and good that has come out of Iraq, far more than the very few isolated incidents of criminal behavior. Those who have committed atrocities in Iraq have faced charges and are serving prison sentences with a future reduced to being branded Federal Felons when they have completed their sentences and subsequently discharged. In the case of the incident that de Palma depicts, four of the five soldiers involved have been sentenced to military prison for a period of 5 to 110 years. It is safe to say that a couple of them won't be getting out of prison any time soon.

Instead of focusing on the good deeds that are done every day, form giving toys and sports equipment to kids and the reconstruction of a country, de Palma and his Hollywood chickendove cronies prefer to focus on the evil perpetrated by a very few punks. Instead of showing the brutalities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, and the courage of the troops that liberated a country that had suffered horrible degradations and mass murder, we get a detailed movie focusing on an isolated incident.

There are too few movies produced that show the good and honorable deeds of our Armed Forces. Hollywood would rather make films depicting American atrocities, rather than heroism. They would rather make films like Casualties of War rather than The Great Raid, We Were soldiers or The Green Berets.

This is not to say that ugly things did not occur, and, in fact, the incident de Palma focuses, the rape of a young girl and murder of her family, did happen. We know this to be a fact. We also know that the perps are in prison, serving very long sentences.

We also know that Al Qaeda in Iraq has perpetrated many horrendous crimes against the people of Iraq. One of the best documented incidents was written and photographed by Michael Yon, and published on his website. Why are we not seeing Hollywood produce a film depicting these important incidents? When they do, I will cut chickendove moviemakers like de Palma a little slack. Not much slack, but a little.

The film is listed as being slated for a limited American release and is expected to play better in Europe. No surprise there!

Tags:

dePalma Hollywood Iraq Redacted

Posted by Sqotty at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

The Senate EPW runs a good website on global warming that I don't read anywhere often enough. This week they have an article on a paper being published that shows that "man-made global warming" is NOT a scientific consensus. In fact, the article points out that less than half of all peer reviewed publications support the U.N.-Al Gore position that it is our fault that the Earth is getting warmer.

From Michael Asher's piece on Daily Tech:

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

According to the piece, there is a very small margin between those papers that explicitly accept and those that explicitly reject the Al Gore position on global warming. Even playing loosy-goosy by claiming the middle ground implicitly supports "man-made global warming" you still don't get anything resembling a consensus on global warming.

The article also points out that of all of the published papers in the last several years there is only one that claims that there will be catastrophic consequences due to "man-made global warming." That's probably the paper the social engineers who brought us the IPCC report read.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

I think that this last is something many people are unaware of: that the reports quoted as touring the "consensus" and the "90% likely" claim were not written by climate scientists but by politicians. In other words, the "Summary for Policy Makers" was written by and for policy makers. This is also pointed out in the Avery/Singer book, as well as other shortcomings to the IPCC reports, such as charts of scientific data modified in a way to so as to support the climate alarmist viewpoint.

On the EPW site there is another article posted last week on new peer-reviewed publications that shoots down the "man-made" global warming madness.

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned "in one fell swoop" the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D." Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 - 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2," he added.

It goes on to point out that0.7K of that warming has already taken place, thus leaving a mere 0.4K of warming that can be predicted from CO2 forcing, providing that CO2 levels continue to increase to the point where it has doubled to roughly 560 parts per million, That's a very small fraction of a percent of the atmosphere. This is in keeping with scientific understanding that CO2 loses its capacity to force temperature increases as it grows in abundance in the atmosphere.

This second article on the EPW website goes into a lot of other material that proves that the current warming trend ain't our fault, including a little talked about fact that of the 0.038% of the atmosphere that is CO2, only 2.75% is derived from human activity. That means of the 383 ppm of atmospheric CO2, only 10.5ppm is caused by man. Talk about insignificant!

One more quote from the article, and I would encourage reading the entire piece:

In May 2007, the "father of meteorology" Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," Bryson, who has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, said. (LINK) "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson added.

Bryson is right on the money. Just as the Earth cooled down after the Medieval Warming Period (Viking Age) as it entered the Little Ice Age, so it is with the Modern Warming Period. Solar activity, sunspot cycles, the Earth's tilt and variations in its orbit, and so many other factors, all play a role in the ongoing changes in climate, and all are ignored by the global warming fear mongers.

Tags:

EPW Senate IPCC DailyTech

Posted by Sqotty at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There are serious problems when you have a Communist dictatorship using slave labor as a trading partner to manufacture goods. There has been a deluge of reports that products from China have poisoned pets, used lead paint in toys, defective tires, lethal chemicals in various foods and toothpaste, and so on.

From Reuters:

Mattel has only itself to blame for a huge toy recall that has stoked global alarm about Chinese-made goods, state media said on Thursday, charging that a slew of foreign safety scares had exposed a protectionist agenda.

Protectionist agenda?

"If it comes down to blame, then it all lies with the U.S. side," the paper said of the Mattel magnet recall, noting that the problem was a design defect. "The Chinese manufacturer only produced according to those specifications."

I seriously doubt that Mattel would provide manufacturing specifications that called for lead paint to be used.

There are serious ramifications when dealing with dictatorial regimes, and it isn't limited to having deadly products exported to the United States, although that has become a serious one.

The biggest problem is the amount of money that flows into China as a result of trade and how it is used: Specifically to bolster their military and totalitarian government.

Although free trade is a great thing when free countries and their people are involved. Free trade with communist regimes is not a good idea.

There are those that claim that free trade will help bolster the call for democracy. Maybe, but when the government is able to use the money that is earned from trade to enforce their will on the people, democracy hasn't got a chance.

If Mattel or any other U.S. company is to share in the blame for the deadly products they import, it is for their choice of trading partners and manufacturers, specifically dealing with communist dictatorships.

Tags:

China Mattel

Posted by Sqotty at 6:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I received an email from Senator Barbara Moonbat Boxer the other day. To my (lack of) surprise, she is once again showing her complete and total ignorance of what a U.S. pull out from Iraq will mean to the millions of Iraqis, as well as a complete lack of knowledge of the impact of the U.S. withdrawal and consequent abandonment of South Vietnam.

In Boxer's email, she writes:

Did you hear President Bush last week talking about Iraq? Instead of listening to the vast majority of the American people on Iraq, President Bush is talking about how wrong it was to leave Vietnam.

I hate to break the news to you, but Bush is right about Vietnam. When we pulled out, the North Vietnamese moved in (just as Iran will do to Iraq the moment we pull out). Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were put in gulags, and tens of thousands of people were murdered.

Things were worse in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge liquidated over a third of the population, over two million people were murdered, while the rest of the population were used as slave labor.

That is what happened when we abandoned South Vietnam, at the insistence of the Democrats who ran Congress.

Democrats like Boxer are not ashamed of what happened in Vietnam, and, obviously, are willing to sacrifice millions of Iraqis to a similar fate, this time at the hands of a brutal totalitarian theocracy. Should we abandon Iraq, as we did Southeast Asia, the millions of Iraqis that have supported their liberation from tyranny and aided the formation of a democratically elected government will be forfeit.

Well, just a reminder to this President: U.S. troops stayed in Vietnam, in the middle of a civil war, for more than ten long and painful years. More than 50,000 of our young people died, countless wounded mentally and physically. Suicides and homelessness still follow too many of our Vietnam veterans. How many more would have died if George W. Bush had been President in the 1970's? How many more of our troops and innocent Iraqis will die if we don't finally end this war?

Yes, over 50,000 Americans died, and many thousands more were injured in Vietnam. As for the "suicides and homelessness" of Vietnam veterans, it is thanks to the hard-left that took control of the Democratic Party in the late '60s and early '70s that we have to thank for that. Instead of a hero's welcome, they were spat upon by the chickendoves, and called baby killers; even John Flipper Kerry referred to them as being nothing more than killing machines and war criminals.

Although how many Americans and Iraqis will die if we continue to work with Iraq in ending the terrorism and sectarian violence is valid, it is also valid, and critical, to ask "how many Iraqis will be murdered should we let the terrorists win?" We should also ask how many Americans will die at the hands of terrorists if we surrender to them now, as they will be greatly emboldened to carry out more and bloodier attacks against the U.S.

Boxer clearly doesn't understand what is at stake in Iraq, nor does she care.

Congratulations Senator Boxer, you are a Moonbat. I think we'll start calling you Senator Moonbat instead.

Tags:

Iran Iraq Boxer Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Ahmadinejad of Iran is making its intentions towards its neighbor, Iraq, perfectly clear. They want to take control of the country. From FoxNews:

"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."

This is another reason why we must succeed in eradicating the terrorists operating (with Iran's help) in Iraq, and build a functional democracy there.

Iran has been funneling arms, money and people into Iraq to help the terrorists and sectarian death squads destabilize the region so that they can then step in and institute a totalitarian theocracy in Iraq as well.

Add to that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, and the entire region could go up in flames if we fail on delivering our promise of Liberty to the people of Iraq.

Tags:

Iran Iraq Ahmadinejad

Posted by Sqotty at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Presidential Candidate John Cox of Illinois was the only candidate present at the Minnesota Straw Poll held this week. as such, he gave a good speech to the couple of hundred Minnesotans present for the event.

A shot video of his speech, splitting it into two parts so that it will fit into YouTubes 10 minute parameter for videos.

Part 1 of John Cox

Part 2 of John Cox

A lot of what Cox said resonates well with me, and I suspect with others as well. That being said, there were two points he made in regard to Iraq that put me off. The first is that he said if the current, democratically elected, government of Iraq doesn't get off its keester and get its political act together, we can and should replace it, just as we got rid of Saddam Hussein. The second is that we need to get Iraq's oil producing infrastructure up and fully operational and moving to the U.S.

The second point is the shorter one to explain why it bugs me, so I'll start with it. By complaining about the lack of oil production in post-war Iraq, and the need to get it flowing plays into the leftist mantra that Iraq is a "war for oil." This is not to say that he shouldn't make mention of oil production in Iraq, but the way it is phrased is important.

The way he presents it makes it sound as though we are entitled to the oil (or, more accurately, it's our oil). Getting oil production up and running to full capacity is important for Iraq for a number of reasons: Job creation, stabilizing the economy, and bringing in desperately needed revenues to facilitate the reconstruction of Iraq. It should not matter to whom Iraq sells their oil to (however I would prefer it not go to communist countries like China), and, sure, I would prefer it end up in our gas tanks in the long haul. But that is secondary to using the oil production to getting Iraq back on its feet, which is the primary goal.

Current oil production in Iraq is about 2 million barrels per day, only slightly below the target production of 2.1 million barrels. All in all, that's not too shabby a record.

As for the point on replacing the government of Iraq, Cox needs to remember that it is a democratically elected government, and as such, it should not be our decision to replacing it with something that might be more "friendly" to us. It is also an ally, and one should not threaten to remove our allies from power.

There have been numerous mistakes made in Iraq, including by the government that we helped to build and hope to see achieve good things. The Iraqi government has, with our blessing, made deals with murdering thugs like Muqtada al-Sadr, who is more interested in destabilizing the government and bringing in a totalitarian theocracy such as that which rules its neighbor, Iran.

Iraq also has to deal with rebuilding all of its infrastructure, particularly its military and police forces. This is a big job, and even though there are plenty of Iraqis who have shown the willingness to step up to the plate, they have also made themselves big targets for the terrorists. How many police stations and recruitment depots have been bombed killing and wounding hundreds of people?

On the upside, Cox resonates well on many of the issues.

He supports replacing the IRS with the "Fair Tax," which is a good move as it will encourage savings and investment by placing the tax burden on consumption.

He gets border security and illegal immigration. As he said, we don't need to reform our immigration laws but enforce the current laws.

In fact, he is right on the money on nearly issue.

It's just on those two points on Iraq that I found to be a turnoff. I hope that if he reads this he'll understand where I am coming from and reconsider his position on those two points. If he does, he will resonate much better with the mainstream Conservatives that make up the GOP.

Tags:

Minnesota HRCC GOP Cox Straw Poll

Posted by Sqotty at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

The Washington Times is running a piece on an Op-Ed that Rep. John Boehner wrote for Townhall.com this week. The thrust of both articles is how the GOP can regain the majority in Congress in 2008. I think Boehner hit it out of the park.

In his Op-Ed at Townhall.com, Boehner talks about what he has learned from constituents at local town hall meetings; what is important to Americans: border security, illegal aliens, the price of energy, health care, and more.

Mr. Boehner said Republicans can take back control of Congress next year with a focus on conservative principles, despite sluggish fundraising numbers and poll numbers that favor Democrats.

Yep, it can be done…the question is: will it be done?

House Republicans are hoping to build enthusiasm with their base by focusing on issues like immigration, the Democratic leadership and, to a lesser extent, the war in Iraq. They say this re-branding with the base, if successful, will pay off in increased financial contributions in time for next year's elections.

"You can always count on the Democrats to behave like Democrats," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain. "While they continue to falter, we need to continue to provide a clear alternative."

It isn't so much a need to "re-brand" but to go back to the roots that has made Conservatism successful: limited government, lower taxes which stimulates economic growth, and enforcing our immigration laws, just to name a few of the issues.

Boehner raises good points in his piece, including:

America faces the problem of rising health care costs. Millions of Americans go without health care every year, and Democrats have refused to let small businesses offer high-quality coverage and prevented workers from taking their coverage from job to job. In Ohio, people were asking why Democrats cut free market Medicare Advantage programs to pay for health benefits for illegal immigrants. And they were concerned by Democrats' plan to expand government-run bureaucratic health care to families making up to $82,000 a year, cleverly billed as an extension of "children's health insurance." We need less government and more health care; Democrats just want more government.

There are a lot of people who rail about government being too involved in their lives, including the so-called "surveillance society" of easier eavesdropping on international phone calls involving known terrorists. Yet these same people want to entrust the government with managing their health care decisions. This makes no sense! But then Liberal/Progressives rarely do make any sense.

One of the biggest issues with health care, aside from escalating costs, is being able to transport your coverage when transitioning between jobs. There are stories around about how someone with a long-term health issue is unable to get continued coverage for it when changing jobs as the new insurer refuses to cover pre-existing conditions. Maybe they found a loop hole in the coverage when people are transitioning, maybe those people made a bad choice for interim coverage that caused the loss of their condition being covered. However, there needs to be a better way of handling it so someone doesn't get surprised by the loss of coverage on a long term/permanent illness (like diabetes).

As for government pushing its health care plan on me, no thanks. When they can't, or are unwilling, to enforce our laws, how can I trust them to manage my health care? And will it be as good as what I have now, or will it be reduced to Canada Care, where everyone waits in line?

Too many Republicans believe the way to win is to lean left in order to appear "moderate." This doesn't work as the people that such politicians are attempting to appeal to will never vote for a Republican. The "fiscal conservative, social liberal" Republicans end up alienating the Conservative base and still lose to the hard-core liberal-progressives.

The bottom line is that Boehner is right: The way to win in 2008 is to get back to our conservative roots and rediscover Reaganism (minus amnesty for illegals, Reagan's one great mistake). Cut the spending and the taxes, grow the economy, secure the border, enforce the laws and win the war.

We need to open up new sources of oil production, including drilling in ANWR and the outer continental shelf. We need to embrace nuclear energy rather than live in fear of it. And we need to let Americans do what they do best: innovate without the shackles of excessive taxation.

Tags:

Boehner Republicans GOP

Posted by Sqotty at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

In 2006 John Kerry said that if you don't do well in school you get stuck in Iraq. This year Barack Obama has said that our military is doing nothing but air raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan. Kerry wanted to be president and lost to George W. Bush. Obama wants to be President; hopefully he will also go down in defeat.

Yet they both echo the reigning sentiments of the Democratic Party and the hard-left that controls the party's agenda.

The Gateway Pundit posed this question:

Why do democrats hate the military so much?

It's a good question.

Another one to ask is: Why would I want one of them to be "Commander in Chief" of our Armed Forces? This is especially relevant for those currently serving in uniform. Do you want someone in the position of command who thinks you are doing nothing but "air raiding villages and killing civilians?"

As a former serviceman, USAF in the '80s, I would not want for my Commander in Chief who thinks that that is all our military does.

Obama has also threatened to invade Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. Pakistan may not be a role-model of Democracy, however the government there is struggling to keep radical Islam in check. If Obama were to invade Pakistan, we would end up with greater problems in the Middle East than we now have, as well as another war. By attacking an ally we would deservedly become a country that could not be trusted.

Obama talks tough when it comes to the dictatorial regime of Castro in Cuba, and how America should spread and encourage democracy. Yet he has always stood against the removal of the murdering tyrant who ruled Iraq with a blood-soaked iron fist, and would prefer to send that country back down the road of tyranny rather than standing strong with the fledgling democratically elected government.

Another major consideration for selecting a president is to remember that whomever we elect will have their finger on the proverbial "button," control of our nuclear arsenal.

Both Hillary and Obama have made statements that the use of nuclear weapons is never an option. This sends a green light to the dictators of Iran, China and North Korea that they can expect to have carte blanche should either of these two be elected. It also sends a signal to the terrorists that they should continue their pursuit to gain nuclear materials from their benefactors, especially Iran.

Bill Clinton was well known for his disdain of the responsibility of the nuclear arsenal by losing the launch codes and frequently leaving behind the man with the nuclear "football" when traveling by motorcade. (Read Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson.)

It would also explain the current trend in Russia as President Putin rebuilds its military and undertakes military exercises with Communist China, as well as sending out long range bomber patrols reminiscent of the cold war.

Whomever we choose as president to succeed Bush has got to be able to understand that it is one thing to disdain the use of nuclear weapons and another to be always vigilant in the event that their use is necessitated. And a prospective president, or any member of Congress for that matter, should never disparage the men and women who choose to serve our country in the Armed Forces of the United States.

As the 2008 Campaign for the Presidency goes into full swing, those are truly important questions to ask yourself: What kind of commander in Chief will they be, and how well can they handle the responsibility of managing, and, God forbid, using our nuclear arsenal.

Tags:

Obama Hillary Democrats Military

Posted by Sqotty at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is looking for a bumper sticker slogan for the 2008 campaign.

Here's my recommendation: "We Surrender!"

You can find the slogan center at: BS Slogan

Tags:

DSCC We Surrender Democrat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Last night the Minnesota House Campaign Committee hosted the first Minnesota Presidential Straw Poll. The short version of the event is that Fred Thompson won the poll, followed very closely by Mitt Romney. Ron Paul of Texas made a good showing, but only because what looked like his entire Minnesota Campaign staff was there.

Jason Lewis broadcasted live from the event, interviewing Ron Paul (I heard it on the drive downtown) and John Cox who was at the event.

State Representative Marty Seifert MCed the event, and many other GOP State Reps were in attenedance. (Thanks to Rep. Garofalo for providing me with a ticket). Harold Shudlick, who ran a good, but unsuccessful bid for the GOP nod for the U.S. Senate was also in attendance.

The results of the straw poll are:

Kudos to John Cox for taking the time to join us in Minnesota for this Presidential event.

There were some extra boxed meals that were donated to a shelter.

Tags:

Minnesota HRCC GOP Thompson Romney Cox Huckabee Straw Poll

Posted by Sqotty at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks like Hillary Clinton has changed her name in an attempt to associate herself with Richard Nixon. From the Washington Times:

As far as I can tell, its origins are nothing more than the campaign claims of the two candidates. Sen. Hillary Milhous Clinton has been lumbering around the political landscape talking about herself as commander in chief.

Or, perhaps, they are being tongue in cheek.

Despite their gaff, the piece is well worth reading as it focuses on the politcal clichés of Obama being able to bring change to Washington while Hillary has the experience to lead. It is right on the money when it comes to their experience and trustworthiness, which, in both cases, is not very high.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Nixon

Posted by Sqotty at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Associated Press -Ipsos poll on reading in America has been released. It took little time for a hard-left liberal/progressive to tout the survey as indicative that Liberals read and Conservatives don't despite that it is not possible to make such inferences based on the data released. Now, if the cross-tabulated data is ever released, we may be able to learn something. It is also important to realize that the poll was of 1003 people, in a country with a population of over 300 million people.

From Breit Bart:

Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why-and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

The American Association of Publishers should be embarrassed by having their president make such insulting statements, especially since these statements are not defensible. And should they keep in their employ someone who insults a large segment of the population?

We all know that left-wingnuts and liberals control the publishing industry, just as they control the main stream media and the entertainment industry. That, like the tripe coming out of Hollywood, makes it hard to find good books worth reading.

Yet they feel secure to insult the book buying public despite the fact that the sales of books by conservatives do exceptionally well. If conservatives don't read, who's buying all of those books?

Also, the survey asks people how many books they have started and failed to finish. Quite a few there. Then there is the question of the religion of the person being surveyed. Based on the survey, where the number of Muslims reading books is ZERO, someone like Schroeder would naturally assume that Muslims don't read. Yet we all know that this is far from the truth.

As for who's reading what books, the indicators are that older people read far more books than younger people, and younger people tend to be more "liberal" and read more text books.

I read about 50 books per year, ranging from fiction (including SF and Fantasy) to technical books (due to my job) to hard science, current events and politics. I am not a left-winger.

Tags:

American Association of Publishers Pat Schroeder Polling AP-Ipsos Books

Posted by Sqotty at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's been a weird few days and haven't had as much opportunity to write as I would like. tomorrow is likely to be the same as it is the Minnesota GOP Straw Poll, and my friend, and State Rep., Pat Garofalo has offered me a ticket, which I greatly appreciate.

I haven't decided who I favor as the top of the chart for my hit parade for the 2008 campaign. I do hae several favorites, and several whom I have eliminated from consideration in the primary (those would be Giuliani and McCain).

I like Mitt Romney a lot, and his being LDS doesn't have any bearing to my choice. He has done a good job in Massachusetts.

I also like Mike Huckabee, especially after reading his website. We seem to be on the same page on most issues, especially the big ones (Iraq, the War on Terror, border security, Second amendment).

Duncan Hunter has a lot going form him to. Chuck Yeager is a big supporter of his, and that speaks volumes in my book. No offense to Hunter, I am just not sure he can pull it off at the top of the ticket. He would make one heckuva a great VP.

Finally, there is Newt Gingrich. I don't think he is in the race at this point, and he has a lot of "baggage" to over come. At least, that is the popular thought. The thing is, the "baggage" he has only carries weight with people who wouldn't vote for any Republican in the first place: the MoveOn crowd (and I wish they would MoveOn...to France!).

My initial thoughts on Fred Thompson were favorable, however, I've changed my mid about him. I don't think he is the Reaganite that many people want us to believe him to be.

So, right now, those are my four choices: Romney, Huckabee, Hunter, and Gingrich. I have no idea how the straw poll will go tomorrow. However, I will write a post about it when I get home.

It should be a lot of fun as Jason Lewis will be there as well, kind of an MC or Keynote or something.

Tags:

Straw Poll Romney Hunter Huckabee McCain Giuliani Gingrich

Posted by Sqotty at 7:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

There is a proposed ballot initiative in California that would change the way it allocates electoral votes in the electoral college from a winner take all to allocation by congressional district with the overall winner of the state receiving an additional 2 electoral votes.

As California has the most electoral power, with 55 electors, in the country, this change would translate into a more balanced representation of the people in the election of our president. It will also mean that candidates will have to spend more time (and money) campaigning in the state as they can no longer afford to ignore the more rural regions of California. It will really change the dynamics of presidential elections in that state.

From CSN News:

Supporters call the plan more democratic because it would better represent the popular vote. But critics say it would needlessly tamper with the Electoral College for purely partisan gains.

Both sides of the debate have valid points, however there was a move by Democrats to make this same kind of change in Colorado a few years ago for the exact same reason: to divide up the electoral power to get better representation.

Quite frankly, I am in favor of such a change, especially starting with the largest states in the Union. I hate the idea of living in a state where my vote doesn't matter as it is a forgone conclusion that the other guy will get all of the electoral votes. Having electors chosen by Congressional District is more in keeping with how the Founders set up the electoral process. Each state is accorded electors based on their Congressional Delegation. That's one for each Congressional District plus two for the state overall.

The Founding Fathers also left it up to the individual states to determine how their electors are allocated.

In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Hiltachk, said California is in the frustrating situation of having 55 electoral votes -- 21 or 22 more than any other state -- but because it leans either solidly Republican or Democrat, politicians tend to take its electoral votes for granted.

This is a darn good point. Of course, I don't know if California has leaned Republican since Ronald Reagan. It certainly hasn't in the last four election cycles.

As for taking California for granted, that makes since. Why should a candidate spend substantial amounts of money in a state he knows he has no chance of carrying. Whereas, if electors are decided by Congressional Districts, they will naturally want to spend time in California, most likely focusing on districts where they have a chance of getting good results, like San Diego for the GOP or San Francisco for the Democrats.

Eckery added that adopting the Maine-Nebraska model would be an improvement over the current "winner-take-all" method of choosing electors.

"In the case of presidential elections ... all it takes is a plurality of votes in California, and you win everything. President Clinton, for example, in 1992 carried 46 percent of California but all of its electoral votes -- in effect disenfranchising the majority of the state's population."

This is actually true in most states where the winner take all mentality is in place, and validates the necessity of changing the electoral process.

The current intention is to have it on the ballot in the 2008 Primary so that it would take effect in the 2008 Federal election.

Currently, only Nebraska and Maine follow a system similar to what is being proposed in California.

Tags:

California Election Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I just finished reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling. This is the last volume in the famed "Harry Potter" series, and it is a very good sendoff for the series. I will not include any spoilers. I'll not even tell you about Hermione having Draco Malfoy's love child.

The novel is a remarkably good read, keeping a rhythm that makes it a hard bood to put down. It's a real page turner, and my wife is happy I have finished it as now she won't be a "Harry Potter widow" any more.

For those who have read all of the books in the series, you will see that this final volume in the series ties up a lot off loose-ends and resolves many of the conflicts and answers a lot of questions about Harry Potter and all those whom he has encountered after he entered the Wizarding World.

If you haven't read the books, then I would recommend reading them all in sequence before tackling the Deathly Hallows. Like most of the books, it weighs in at a hefty 759 pages, and is dense in detail, much of which will be glossed over or left out in the adaptation to film some few years down the road. Let's face it, like the Order of the Phoenix, it is tough to fit a novel of this length into a two and a half-hour movie.

This final novel has a number of surprises in it, as well as some twists and turns. There are few moments where the pacing seems to slow down, mostly in the first part of the book. Then it will come on like the Hogwart's Express on the first day of school and not let up.

I found myself wanting to stay up all night reading it rather than setting it down, especially as I reached the main climax of the saga. You will, too, when you sit down and read it.

The only downside to completing he series is that there will be no future Harry Potter stories. They've all been told.

Tags:

Harry Potter Rowling Deathly Hallows

Posted by Sqotty at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It seems like there is a lot of abuse of various systems in this country, now we have two Indian tribes offering memberships in their bands, for a price, and claiming it will but illegal immigrants on the path to legal status. From MyWAy News:

For prices starting at $50, two nonfederally recognized Indian tribes are offering membership to thousands of illegal immigrants, claiming they can achieve legal status by joining the groups.

But immigration authorities insist becoming a tribe member gives no protection against being deported. And immigration advocates condemn the practice, saying it defrauds immigrants of money and gives them false hope.

"You can't just decide to become a member of a tribe and all of a sudden legalize your status," said Marilu Cabrera, a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sounds like these two "tribes" have found a way to increase their "tribal" coffers by scamming illegal aliens and maybe trying to scam U.S. Law.

The article reports that people have paid as much as $1,200 for membership in the Kaweah Indian Nation, which is not federally recognized, as it has no relationship to the Kaweah tribe that at one time did exist.

There are several others operating, and prosecutors will have difficulties prosecuting them as the victims, illegal aliens, are afraid of coming forward as they may be turned over to immigration officials and subsequently deported.

People who would seek to profit from illegal aliens in such a fashion are despicable, and I hope that investigators are able to secure enough evidence to try and convict these scumbags.

This is yet another reason we have to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. It is because we have a long history of ignoring border security and the vast number of illegal aliens that such crimes are able to take place and even flourish.

Tags:

immigration scam crime

Posted by Sqotty at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Anytime the now former soviet Union and Communist China gets together militarily speaking, it is a bad sign.

Putin has been flexing his muscle lately over the North Pole, trying to claim it is part of Russia, and then the recent reports where a para-military youth organization reminiscent of the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany, which has also been in the news recently, combined with references to mass-murderer Joseph Stalin as being a great leader, all bad signs.

Now we have long range soviet bombers flying over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans at the same time thousands of Russian and Chinese troops are on joint maneuvers.

Although communism may have fallen in Russia, it looks like there is a resurgence, or at least the potential for it, in Russia, with Putin filling the void.

Yahoo News

Tags:

Putin China Russia Military

Posted by Sqotty at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews is reporting that Comrade Hugo Chavez, Dictator of Venezuela, plans to put forth his plans for reforming his country's constitution which will include the ability for him to be re-elected indefinitely.

Chavez has pushing his country more and more towards totalitarianism and has in the past made statements that he wants to have the constitution changed so that he could remain in office for more than the constitutionally allowed terms.

During the past year Chavez has "nationalized" the oil industry as part of the move to communism, as well as shutting down RCTV, an opposition broadcaster, for allegedly pushing to have Chavez removed from office. He has also threatened to seize other private businesses, including, but not limited to, food processing and grocers, in order to achieve a more Soviet style country.

Chavez's political allies firmly control the National Assembly responsible for reviewing his proposal as well as the Supreme Court. His critics accuse him of becoming obsessed with power and seeking to become a lifelong leader just like his close friend Fidel Castro.

Chavez rejects allegations that he poses a threat to democracy.

Chavez is partially right in that you can't pose a threat to something that no longer exists in Venezuela.

Since his re-election to a fresh six-year term in December, Chavez stoked fears that he his headed toward Cuba-style communism by creating a single ruling party and nationalizing Venezuela's several of key industries including the oil, telecommunications and electricity sectors.

There has been quite a bit in the news about his confiscating the assets of foreign oil companies, or, at best, compensating them for pennies on the dollar for the assets. all of this was done with the use of force, that the oil companies and other impacted sectors would have no choice in the matter save to accept his offer or face total confiscation of their assets.

Chavez, a former paratroop commander who was first elected in 1998, denies copying Cuba and insists that basic freedoms will be respected under his government. He says that democracy has flourished, rather than diminished, under his administration.

Chavez pushed through a new constitution in 1999, shortly after he was first elected. He says the charter must be redrafted in order to steer Venezuela away from capitalism.

Democracy has not flourished under Chavez, nor can democracy flourish where people must live in fear that their property will be seized, or their broadcast licenses suspended, thus putting them out of business (for all intents and purposes, that is the same as confiscation of assets), simply because they vocally oppose his agenda.

Thus it was with RCTV, and thus went free speech and freedom of the press in Venezuela.

Chavez is a megalomaniac nutcase who has allied himself with Ahmadinejad of Iran and Fidel Castro of Cuba. So it is no surprise that the Hollywood elites like Sean Penn has flocked to his banner.

Chavez is bad for Venezuela. How long will it take for the majority of Venezuelans to wake up and realize what a nutty tyrant they have ruining their country?

Tags:

Chavez Venezuela

Posted by Sqotty at 6:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It comes as no surprise to me that once again the Red Star Tribune is publishing an opinion piece pushing for a tax increase. This time it is blaming Republicans and conservatives for not wanting to increase taxes to pay for roads and infrastructure. That's what we already pay taxes for. Let's keep in mind that this year Minnesota had a $2 Billion surplus that the Democrats used for a spree of new spending rather than returning it to the tax payers. More on that later as we get into the opinion piece.

Conservatives are exceptionally good at politicizing emotion. From the headlong rush toward a half-trillion-dollar misadventure in Iraq to attacks on immigrants, gays and abortion rights, emotional appeals have brought to power conservatives whose bedrock ideology is no new taxes, no matter what, and shrinking government.

Actually, it is the Liberal/Progressive/Whatever Democrats who are the real experts at manipulating the emotions of voters by using lines like "it's for the kids" when it comes to huge increases in education spending while refusing taxpayers the option of "school choice" via a voucher system. They play on emotions where health care is concerned by claiming millions of Americans cannot afford insurance and thus getting health care, yet there isn't a hospital emergency room in the country that would refuse to treat an uninsured person for illness or injuries. They call the liberation of Iraq a "misadventure" yet millions Iraqis have been able to vote in a democracy for the first time, and live in a free society, albeit one that has to deal with terrorists and sectarian death squads. The right to kill your children is another hot button issue for Liberal/Progressive Democrats as they claim it is "reproductive rights," rather than pushing for personal responsibility and ensuring that all Americans, even those in the womb, will be able to enjoy our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Conservatives have never "attacked" immigrants, but rather have pushed for enforcing our immigration laws, including the deportation of illegal aliens and securing our nations borders. Nor have conservatives "attacked" gays; there is a call to pass the Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as being between one woman and one man, which is what has been the norm throughout human history (with the exception of some cultures that have practiced polygamy, but that was still between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman).

On the flip side of the coin Progressive/Liberal Democrats keep trying to change society through judicial fiat as with gay "marriage" in Massachusetts, or "royal" decree as was done in San Francisco. The claim that illegal aliens are just immigrant trying to make a living, yet these people have and do break our laws by violating immigration law, using forged documents and stealing the identities (and social security numbers) of working Americans. I could go on (and on), but you get the point.

But now that Minnesotans' tears are being shed and their fears heightened over the deadly collapse of the Interstate 35W river bridge, state Rep. Mark Buesgens tells us in his Aug. 10 commentary that this is no time to let emotions rule our collective response. It's a hypocritical ploy from a conservative legislator who has long prospered in the political marketplace of emotions.

Not even 24 hours had passed since the bridge collapse before the Lefties began calling for tax increases and blaming tax cuts for the disaster, yet it isn't transportation taxes that had been cut, but other taxes, and Minnesota ended up with a $2 Billion surplus, not a shortfall due to tax cuts. Who's playing with people's emotions? The Progressive/Liberal left.

Along with strong emotions, however, an unexpected bridge collapse legitimately and reasonably raises concrete questions about safety, maintenance, design, construction and political funding. Elected officials, after all, propose, authorize and administer transportation funds. And the public has a right to know about those decisions and to judge the results. That's democracy's ultimate check and balance.

Yep, here he is right, and with a $2 Billion surplus that COULD have been used for infrastructure, the Democrats went "whoohoo" and went on a spending spree like a bunch of drunken Liberals.

If the government has a surplus, we must cut taxes. If there is an ensuing deficit, we can't raise taxes back up, because that would hurt an already weakened economy. If pressing needs arise and public safety is at stake, we must reprioritize government spending, robbing health care or education to fill the gap.

Yep, and as has been shown, the tax cuts helped the economy and revenues grew, and Minnesota had a $2 Billion surplus, because people have more money to spend thus stimulating economic growth and job creation . Raising taxes has an inverse result, depressing tax revenues as people do not have as much to spend which causes economic stagnation and increased unemployment.

As for reprioritizing government spending, Liberals have been very good at robbing tax payers to support Liberal ideas rather than taking care of existing infrastructure. Instead of encouraging those in need to seek a helping hand up, they give them hand outs, thus keeping them on the public dole and encouraging bad behavior.

This is nonsense when pump prices often fluctuate daily by far more than the nickel or dime by which bipartisan legislators proposed hiking the gas tax. There's another difference: When drivers dig deeper for those market increases in the price of fuel, not a penny goes to easing traffic congestion that costs Twin Cities commuters hundreds of dollars a year or to maintaining bridges whose structural integrity is a matter of life and death.

Yep, and the price of a gasoline includes sales tax, so as the price of gas increases, people are paying more in taxes. That does not go towards infrastructure but into the general fund.

Facts, although they are stubborn things, haven't persuaded us to fix Minnesota's neglected transportation infrastructure, even as the funding shortfall approaches $2 billion a year. Maybe it's time to inject some good old-fashioned emotion into the debate.

Yep, facts are stubborn things, like a $2 Billion surplus squandered on new spending rather than used to cover the transportation infrastructure shortfall that deFiebre points out. Minnesota has spent a heckuva lot of money on light rail rather than on roads and bridges where we need to use it. And that $2 Billion surplus, as part of the State's general fund, could, and should, have been shifted to transportation uses.

Tags:

Star Tribune Minneapolis Bridge

Posted by Sqotty at 5:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The State of California wants to tax its residents in order to provide Cal Grant sand fee waivers to illegal aliens attending Community Colleges. Illegal aliens already enjoy the privilege of only paying in-state tuition rates.

According to the San Jose Mercury News in its editorial:

The "California Dream Act," SB 160 by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would extend eligibility for Cal Grants and community college fee waivers to undocumented students who've attended a state high school for three years; these students already qualify for in-state tuition but not for state or federal aid.

This is a good investment for the state. Brought across the border illegally by their parents, these young people grew up in California. They'll work in California, pay taxes, use services and raise children. Whether they manage to become legal citizens or not, they aren't going away. With a small investment, the state can help swell the ranks of programmers, nurses and technicians.

There are a few problems with this so called "Dream Act," first of which why shouldn't California focus on educating its youth who are not illegal aliens first? The piece also goes on about how California will hit a shortage of college educated workers; how are you going to guarantee that they will stay in California rather than move someplace where the cost of living is more conducive.

They also try to gain support by calling it an investment, when in reality it is a liability. Investments are things like stocks, bonds and real estate, not someone else's education. I can accept that a person paying for their own education, or of their children, as being a kind of investment, but not when they are forced to pay for the education of someone else's children, especially people who have violated our nation's laws.

With no access to state or federal aid, undocumented students often don't see college as a realistic goal. Some get private scholarships or work their way through - an estimated 1,000 undocumented students attend University of California or California State University campuses - but only the most determined complete a degree.

Question for law enforcement: If there are illegal aliens known to be in the colleges and universities, why are they not being rounded up and deported?

The collapse of the federal immigration bill killed a federal version of the Dream Act which included the promise of green-card eligibility for undocumented youths who complete two years of college or military service.

Now part of this last bit includes something I could agree with: Legal status to those serving in the Armed Forces for those youth who were brought here illegally by their parents. I would even say that if they serve a four year enlistment, putting them on the fast-track to citizenship, but they have to complete the four years first to counter-balance their lack of legal status, and must not have any criminal history aside from their status as illegal aliens to enter the Armed Forces. This would be in keeping with policies that have existed recruiting people into the military who want to immigrate to the United States without showing undo favoritism to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens should not be given any legal status simply for completing two years of college at tax payer expense.

Tags:

California Dream Act

Posted by Sqotty at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Comrade Hugo Chavez, the Dictator of Venezuela, is now threatening to cut off oil supplies to the United States should the U.S. attack him again. I was unaware that we had ever attacked Venezuela.

From Reuters:

"No one should think that we're going to stop sending oil to the United States, no -- unless they attack us again," Chavez said during a speech to leaders of Caribbean nations meeting in Caracas for an energy summit.

"If they attack us again like they did in April of 2002 ... there will be no oil."

Although there was a bungled coup attempt in 2002 that temporarily ousted Chavez from power for a whopping two days, there was no U.S. involvement.

Comrade Chavez has been living in a fantasy world where he believes that the U.S. is the "Evil Empire" and that he is the "benevolent" dictator. One thing he is right about, he is a dictator, just not benevolent.

His threat to cut off oil supplies to the U.S., which accounts for about 10-15% of the oil that is consumed here, in response to any perceived attack on Venezuela is nothing more than his way of throwing his weight around and trying to pump himself up to look big. The threats should not be considered idle, but should be used as a signal for Congress to get off its behind and open up new oil fields in ANWR and on the outer continental shelf.

Tags:

Chavez Venezuela Oil

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I spent a two hour shift working the GOP booth at the Dakota County Fair yesterday. It was a hot day, with temperatures well into the 90s matched with high humidity. anybody who knows me knows that it isn't the base temperature that gets me, but the humidity (I grew up in Fresno where temps often soared around 110, but there was virtually no humidity). The exhibit hall we were in, not being very well ventilated must have been a lot hotter.

A lot of people who stopped by the booth made it clear that they were against a tax increase to pay for replacing the bridge that collapsed last week over the Mississippi River. The one exception to that was a DFLer who drifted by (their booth was in the next building).

The folks at the Independence Party that I spoke with were finding a similar reaction.

This is more of a reaction of those who are more politically involved than the mainstream.

I did have a number of good conversations with folks about other things, making the time go by fairly quickly.

Before taking over the booth, my wife, daughter and I spent the afternoon looking around at the various exhibits and livestock barns. Anna, not quite two yet, demonstrated her animal sounds for other fair goers. She is especially good at saying what the sheep says: Baaaaa! And loudly. she also said "hot" for the first time, in response to the pizza we had for dinner at the fair.

The Fair itself was not as well attended for a Saturday as in the past. This may be a function of the heat and humidity, and the threat of rain, which proved to be much more than a threat, as a storm was closing in at about 8:15 PM.

By that time, I had rejoined my wife, Sue, and our daughter, Anna, and we elected to high tail it out of there before the storm hit. The parking lot looked as though we weren't alone in that decision.

We had not gone far down the road when the storm hit with a vengeance. Heavy rain and high winds. We good see pieces of tree limbs, small stuff, being blown around the roads all of the way home. It made for ugly, and dangerous, driving conditions.

Surprisingly we saw a lot of deer, including fawns, running around in the weather. We would have thought that they would be under cover somewhere.

This morning, taking the dogs out for their walkies, I spotted a tree was blown down onto the road we live on. I would be very surprised if that is the only tree that was knocked down in last night's storm. Total rainfall from that storm was 1.25 inches. Not much rain considering the ferocity of that storm.

Tags:

Dakota County Fair Storm

Posted by Sqotty at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I've not had as much time to write as I have been furiously reading to finish the current book on my shelf. The good news is I finished reading it. The bad news is it isn't the new Harry Potter book.

In Danger's Path by W.E.B Griffin is the 8th book in his The Corps series. There are two more in the series to go, but this one is a good stopping point as it ends mid-1943 and the next book in the series picks up with the beginning of the Korean War, which is a bit of a disappointment as there is so much he could do with World War 2.

The series as a whole is excellent reading with characters that are interesting and inspiring, especially the central character of the series, Killer McCoy. All of the cast of people in this series go through a number of life changing events and develop quite nicely, with the probable exception of the one despicable character in the series, Macklin, who was designed to be disliked.

Having read the first eight book, the WW2 sequence, straight through, is the way to go. You will spot a few inconsistencies, but those can be ignored and just enjoy the books for what they are: Darn good reading.

In Danger's Path is a book that wanted to be longer. Reading it, you can feel the need for it to be a couple of hundred pages longer and not be bored with it. It focuses around an operation to set up a clandestine weather station in the Gobi Desert and the rescuing of a group of U.S. military personnel and their families who escaped the Japanese occupation of China by hiding out in the Gobi.

The series is more about the politics of running the war and the personal lives of those who lived through it than it is about the firing of guns, although you get a spattering of that, too.

All in all, a good read, and now that I am at a breaking po