Kowabunga

Apparently Hillary Clinton and the hard-left have still not gotten over the fact that hey lost the 2000 election. Hillary had this to say in the latest rounds of debates (from MyWay news):

"I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress we were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since," Clinton said.

This ignores completely the fact that the Gore campaign attempted to steal the election by having the Florida courts change Florida's election laws after the election took place; it ignores that thousands of voters in Florida were disenfranchised by the liberal media siding with Gore, calling the election for Gore before the polls were closed. This is especially galling as the Florida panhandle is in a different time zone and voter turnout there was substantially lower than normal. And finally it ignores the facts that the Gore attempted to have the absentee ballots of military service members serving overseas thrown out on a technicality (through no fault of the service members) and have the votes of convicted felons counted.

The Supreme court of the U.S. only stepped in because someone had to straighten out the Constitutional mess that the gore Campaign and the Democrats created. They did not give the election to Bush in any way shape or form.

The article goes on to include statements by her competitors for the Democratic Nomination:

Chimed in Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, "Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her."

We'll set aside the fact that according to Democratic standards, Dodd should be considered AWOL during Vietnam. He misses a very important point: Bill Clinton never achieved 50% of the popular vote (unlike Bush who achieved over 50% of the popular vote in 2004). In 1992 he only achieved roughly 42%, a couple of hundred thousand votes (and a fraction of a percent) of the popular vote over then President George H. W. Bush. It does not take a majority of the popular vote to win the presidency; it takes a majority of votes in the Electoral College to win.

Despite what Dems claim, I still think she is their most likely choice, and also one of the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Sometimes I question President's Bush judgement. Not often, mind you, but sometimes, especially where the issue of illegal aliens is involved.

Newsday is carrying an article about a deal cut between President Bush and the State of New York where New York will implement a new form of secure driver's licenses in exchange to being able to issue them to illegal aliens. From the Newsday article:

The deal comes about one month after New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced a plan whereby illegal immigrants with a valid foreign passport could obtain a license.

Saturday's agreement with the Homeland Security Department will create a three-tier license system in New York. It is the largest state to sign on so far to the government's post-Sept. 11 effort to make identification cards more secure.

Spitzer, who has faced much criticism on the issue, said the deal means New York "will usher in the most secure licensing system in the nation."

Quite frankly, New York can implement this system of secure licenses without a provision for issuing them to illegal aliens. That New York is implementing the issue of driver's licenses to illegal aliens is not surprising as Spitzer is a hard-left Democrat.

Tags:

New York Spitzer Bush Dubya

Posted by Sqotty at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I've written about the Westboro "Baptist church" before, but it has been sometime and the news sites haven't had a lot about them until now. a little background: The Westboro "Baptist church", and I use quotation marks to indicate that they are not, in my opinion a Christian church but a bunch of moonbats who don't know the difference between right and wrong., is the group that has taken to protesting at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Their agenda is to promote an anti-homosexual agenda and over the past couple of years decided that these brave Americans who have chosen to serve their country and help oppressed peoples in other countries are being killed by God for America's tolerance of homosexuality. These people are real wankers.

Now the father of a fallen American hero whose funeral was targeted for protest by the Westboro cult is suing that group. From the Evening Sun:

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq took the stand in his invasion of privacy suit against a fundamentalist church that pickets soldiers' funerals, saying protesters carrying signs at his son's burial made him sick to his stomach.

Albert Snyder said Wednesday he had hoped for a private funeral for his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.

"They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family," Snyder testified. "They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside."

The report goes on to cite that this guess will test the limits of the First amendment's protections on free speech. There are limits to free speech, the age-old example being you cannot shout "fire!" in a movie theater when there isn't a fire. The limitations also include vulgar (that would be Kerry's favorite "F" word), shocking or outrageous statements.

Based on that, I would say Albert Snyder has a good chance of winning, as these protests are not only an invasion of privacy, they are also outrageous in their claims. So much so that many States have enacted laws keeping them a set distance from the funeral to prevent them from interfering with the funeral rights.

The report goes on to include what one of the signs these protestors carried. It was very offensive, and used a word that is frequently used in hate-speech against gays. I think you can figure it out without my using it, and it is detailed out in the report. Phelps, the leader of the Westboro cult, claims that that word is used in the bible in this fashion. To the best of my knowledge, he is full of sh!t.

It saddens me greatly that there are sickos like the Westboro cult in this world.

As for the Snyder's, I grieve for your loss and you have my deepest sympathies.

Tags:

Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Protests Marine

Posted by Sqotty at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Mark Morford, an SF Gate columnist, has a lot to say this week about the state of the American education system and the quality of the education our children are receiving. It opens with him talking about a guy he knows that teaches at Oakland High School and is nearing retirement, and how this friend is so shocked at the low performance of the average student that he fears the U.S. will collapse and is considering moving to another country after he retires. By the time I finished the article, I figure his retirement country of choice is most likely France.

The piece, however, starts off simply enough, and I agree with some of what Morford has to say:

And he often writes to me in response to something I might've written about the youth of today, anything where I comment on the various nefarious factors shaping their minds and their perspectives and whether or not, say, EMFs and junk food and cell phones are melting their brains and what can be done and just how bad it might all be.

I'm not sure what an EMF is, but certainly the amount of junk food is having a devastating effect on kids, with obesity become more rampant than ever before. I am also surprised how many kids, albeit teenagers, have their own cell phones these days. They watch way too much TV (something I was guilty of as a kid). Not to mention computer games and iPods and other technology that helps dumb kids down.

Nor does he speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified and don't spend enough time outdoors and don't get any real exercise and therefore can't, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.

Wussified? Yep, I'll buy that. I've been seeing that happening, If they can't identify basic plants, handle a hammer or a screw driver, or any number of basic tools, who the heck is to blame and why is it happening? The basic starting point for a child's education lies with the parents, and that's the bottom line. God, I am glad my wife is able to be a stay-at-home mom, as I would hate to see what our daughter would be turning out like if she were in day care five days a week, which is where the vast majority of children spend their most formative years. Sure, she gets to watch a little bit of TV, but that doesn't mean her brain is getting fried, and it is on a very limited basis, less than an hour a day. Okay, maybe that's still too much.

Now it gets fun…

We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.

"Hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemming have been bad for the soul of this country?" We now know exactly where this guy is coming from. His anti-Christian attitude, so prevalent on the Left, has surfaced. The Left, having fallen in love with the term "fundamentalist" insists on applying it to Christians with a negative connotation. There isn't such a thing as a fundamentalist Christian. Apparently, in his view, anyone who is a Christian is a mindless lemming. I think the fact of the matter is Morford believes anyone who disagrees with him must be a mindless lemming and bad for this country. By the way, countries do not have souls, people have souls.

There are ignorant people coming out of the school systems, but, again, where does the fault lie?

Morford goes on to relate how his imaginary friend (nowhere in the opinion piece is this person identified, so he could be like those unidentified world leaders Kerry used to claim bumping into at various times, urging him on) is dismayed that none of his students know how to use a ruler or define "agriculture" or "democracy".

It is, in short, nothing less than a tidal wave of dumb, with once-passionate, increasingly exasperated teachers like my friend nearly powerless to stop it. The worst part: It's not the kids' fault. They're merely the victims of a horribly failed educational system.

And why has our education system failed? Because of the Liberal Left that has done its utmost to foul things up. The best way to muck things up is by establishing a Federal bureaucracy. The U.S. Department of Education was established in 1979 by Jimmy Carter (I should have guessed!) and the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time. Once it was established, it went in and began messing up what was still a reasonably good education system. Get rid of the Dept. of Education and return things to local control, and we'll begin to see some improvements.

We also need to make sure that every family has a choice in how their children are educated, and are not forced to support a public school system that consistently fails to deliver results. School choice (something that pro-choicers should be able to get behind, if they truly believe they are "pro-choice"), whether through voucher systems, charter schools (a hot button ballot issue in Eagan, MN this year), access to private schools, home schooling. Families need to be able to have choices and pay for those choices, and not be forced into the public school systems that continue to fail their children (and I don't mean fail as in hold back a year in school). Public schools are turning more and more into indoctrination centers on many political issues, including, and most extensively, theories behind the cause of the current warming trend of the Earth's climate.

Then our discussion often turns to the meat of it, the bigger picture, the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens.

Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog.

Yep, here's the meat as Morford moonbats about the war in Iraq and other points. He really believes the stuff he is spewing out. First off, I am not aware of any laws proclaiming "that sex is bad or TV is good and god knows all" nor am I aware of anyone being busted for posting dirty pictures on their blog, unless it included kiddie porn. Blogs with "dirty pictures" are not something I would consider cute.

I have no doubt that the dumbing down of the American population will make it easier to control them as we see more examples of it everyday. And we have the Liberal-Left to thank for that.

I shouldn't be surprised by his attitude, he writes for a San Francisco based publication. He is, however, a definite example of the failures of our education system, which only proves the point his imaginary friend has made. With people like Morford running the future of America, maybe we'd all be better off moving to France.

Morford is a prime example of the master plan of the Liberal Leftist Elites succeeding in their campaign to control the population. It worked on him, but I'll be d@mned if I'll let it work on my children.

Tags:

Morford SF Gate Moonbat Education

Posted by Sqotty at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I ran across a good opinion piece in the SF Chronicle online edition about my former congressman, Pete Stark. I lived in his district before moving to Minnesota, so it is a good thing to know what he's been up to. In this opinion piece Debra Saunders describes Stark as the Ann Coulter of the Democrat Party. That actually describes about half of the Democrat Party.

Last week, after President Bush vetoed a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover not only poor but also middle-class children, Stark accused Republicans of wanting "to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send them to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Stark for his "inappropriate" comments.

This is a very sick statement on two counts: first that Republicans are only interested in killing innocent people and second that the president finds getting American soldiers killed as an entertaining past time. Fortunately I never voted for him, not because he's a Democrat but because he is a lousy congressman. Spewing a contemptible statement like that confirms my long standing opinion of him. Question for Stark: did you say the same thing about Kennedy and LBJ for Vietnam? How about Clinton with Somalia and Kosovo?

Stark, after finding himself in hot water, issued the following statement: "I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best. But I respect neither the commander in chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care."

Actually, he doesn't show a lot of respect for our troops by making outrageous statements. Further, he continues to show his moonbattiness by bundling socialized medicine (health care for children) into his reasons for not having respect for the president.

Surprisingly, Stark served in the Air Force in the '50s (was he drafted?), post Korean War. He was also anti-Vietnam War and had checks printed with the "peace sign" on it and even had one on the roof of the bank he started. He's may not be a chicken dove, but he is still a moonbat.

As Saunders points out in her piece, we are back to the return of the Chicken Hawks for another fun-filled campaign season. Saunders points out several interesting facts about the current field of candidates running for president and a bit of recent history:

Sure, in 2004 Democrats hurled the "chicken hawk" epithet at George W. Bush, who took America to war in Iraq even though he only served as a pilot in the Air National Guard. Then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who had no apparent qualms about President Bill Clinton's evasion of the draft, charged that Bush was "AWOL" during Vietnam.

You see, Democrats had nominated John F. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who had voted for the Iraq war resolution. So, just years after President Clinton put U.S. forces into the former Yugoslavia and sent bombers over Iraq, Democrats argued that only a combat vet was suited to serve in the White House and put U.S. troops in harm's way. In that mind set, Kerry addressed the Democratic National Convention in martial terms: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

The Democrats are very one-sided in their views on the military, especially when it comes to the Vietnam era. Clinton was a draft dodger, milking the system for all that it was worth by getting deferments. The Dems shoot back that Cheney also did so, ignoring the fact that Cheney was already close to being exempt from the draft when Vietnam was going on (I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall that the draft was for those between the ages of 18 and 27, Cheney, being 5 years older than Clinton, had a lower likelihood of being drafted during the war). Basically, the Dems blast Cheney about his draft deferments but not Clinton.

What is worse is the Dems treatment of President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, during which service he flew one of the most dangerous (to the pilot) fighter aircraft in the inventory, and volunteered for a program called "Palace Alert", which, had he been accepted into the program, would have had Bush flying combat missions in Vietnam. This is hardly the mark of someone who was AWOL, despite the rantings of Dan Rather.

The Dems then wrapped themselves in the Flag and pushed hard for a combat veteran, preferably of the Vietnam era. They ended up with John Kerry and lost the election with Bush getting over 51% of the vote (and funny how they still claim he doesn't have a mandate, even though Clinton never broke the 50 percentile and they claim Clinton did have a mandate).

This year the field is truly interesting, as Saunders points out:

In 2008, Democratic hopefuls are twice as likely to have been in law school than in boot camp. Among eight Democrats, Mike Gravel served in the Army from 1951-1954, while Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, served in the Army Reserves. By McAuliffe's lights, Dodd was AWOL.

Based on the 2004 election cycle, the only candidate that should be acceptable to the Dems is Mike Gravel, as all of the others never served or, as McAuliffe would say, AWOL. Meanwhile, the GOP has John McCain (not my favorite, but is gaining traction with me) whose story in the Vietnam War we all know, and Duncan Hunter, a decorated Vietnam Veteran. Oh, yeah, there's also Ron Paul.

Quite a contrast.

Of the Dems, both Hillary and John "Never Served" Edwards voted FOR the Liberation of Iraq. Barrack "Never Served Chicken Dove" Obama claims that if he were a senator then he would have voted against. Maybe that's true, but claims of what one would have done in office don't count.

Three years ago, Democrats shamelessly donned a military mantle. In a display of craven opportunism, they embraced an argument that seemed phony then, and now has vanished. They argued their candidate was better because he was a combat vet. Today none of the Dems' top three candidates has a military record.

Saunders his right on the money on this one.

Meanwhile, back to my former congressman Pete Stark, I have this to say to you: congratulations Congressman Stark, you are the latest winner of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

Pete Stark Moonbat Chicken Hawks Chicken Doves Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Iran is continuing its march towards nuclear munitions, which comes as no surprise to me. From Reuters:

Iran will not negotiate with anyone about its right to nuclear technology, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday, hours before talks aimed at defusing an atomic row with the West were to start in Rome.

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb, a charge Tehran denies, insisting it only wants to master atomic technology so it can make electricity and save its huge oil and gas reserves for export.

Sounds as though Iran is taking a page out of the North Korea playbook when it comes to their nuclear plans. North Korea had promised that they would not use nuclear technology for anything other than energy. the Clintons bought it hook, line and (lead) sinker. Even after we, the American taxpayer, foot the bill for their nuclear facilities, they continued to claim it was only for energy development. Right up until they detonated their first nuke.

Iran is playing the same game, however there are differences on where things could end up. Where China may have made token efforts to rein in North Korea, Russia is siding with Iran, probably because they are building the infrastructure and want to get paid. Iran is also far more likely than North Korea to supply al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups with high quality fissionable material with which to build bombs (and that's not difficult to do!). You can bet if a mushroom cloud suddenly appears over Tel Aviv or New York, the uranium or plutonium used will have come from Iran.

"We are in favor of talks but we will not negotiate with anyone about our right to nuclear technology," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by Iranian state television during his trip to Armenia, which ended on Tuesday.

"The party which should set conditions is Iran not the other party," he was quoted as saying.

There is a big difference in a willingness to negotiate a resolution to the problems of a nuclear armed Iran and the probability that, like North Korea, Iran will use nuclear technology as a means of extorting Western nations. Nuclear tech will bolster the position of the Ayatollahs that rule Iran. They can use it as a weapon against Israel and/or America, arm terrorist groups, or simply use it as a bartering tool, trotting it out every time they want something from the U.N. or the West.

As for Iran being the one to set the conditions for discussions, then that is just a fancy way of saying they aren't interested in negotiating.

People keep claiming it will be at least 10 years before Iran can build a nuclear bomb. North Korea did it in less time, and we ponyed up the financing for it. And people also forget that the U.S. did it in about three years without the technology (like computers, lasers, etc.) that is now available today. The question is, how do we deal with Iran and eliminate the nuclear threat before mushroom clouds start sprouting up over American cities in the name of Allah? And much time do we really have?

Tags:

Iraq Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune ran an editorial piece about Al Gore and his recent Nobel Peace Prize for his work in propaganda. In it, they claim the Boracle can do more good outside the beltway rather than reentering the political arena, while blasting at conservatives critical of the award as being naysayers.

Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize has set off a firestorm of commentary, from both liberals and conservatives. While his prize is well-deserved, despite right-wing naysaying, the country would be better served by Gore remaining outside Beltway politics.

Actually, Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore does more damage by staying out of the race. Why? The answer will become clear in a minute.

Some conservative pundits complained about the relevancy of a peace prize for work on climate change. With a little knowledge of political behavior, however, it's easy to predict how a shifting climate will change natural resources and complicate international relations. When some areas of the world dry up, inhabitants will migrate elsewhere, bringing conflict in their wake.

Yes, the relevancy is highly questionable. The Boracle's An Inconvenient Truth was more political propaganda than science, and much of the science reported in it was erroneous with even more scientific facts ignored, just as was done in the latest IPCC report. Yep, the climate is changing, however that is nothing new. The Earth's climate has undergone change since the beginning of time and will continue to do so until the end of time. People will move with the resources, just as they have done in the past. That's just the way things work.

The science of global climate change survived vicious attacks on its credibility (in part due to the consensus of nearly all scientists familiar with the issue). Backers of the big polluters are now trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. [By] staying out of the political arena, [Gore] will deprive the cynics of claiming [his] work is for personal gains in power. ...

"Credibility (in part due to the consensus of nearly all scientists familiar with the issue)"? What credibility is their when they ignore the ice core samples that cover hundreds of thousands of years of climate data? Or the impact of sun spot activity on the climate? And a host of other factors? As for the consensus? What consensus is there? Check here and here for an update on the so called "scientific consensus". There is a consensus that the climate is changing, but not on the cause.

The piece also gets it wrong that the Boracle deprives those who disagree with him on the cause of the current warming trend that this is about personal power. I don't think any one has claimed he is doing this for personal power. However his staying out of the political arena allows him to steer clear of open debate on the issue and having to back up is claims when faced with real scientific data.

Elder statesmen are freed from the constraints of facing reelection. Hence, they may be candid about what they believe. People with vested interests in issues rarely give an accurate portrayal, and elected officials always have a vested interest in political matters.

Sure, he can be candid about his beliefs, but is he giving us an scientifically accurate analysis? One thing the piece is right about is that people with vested interests "rarely give an accurate portrayal" on the issues they are involved with. The same is true with Al gore and his carbon credit business:

By staying clear of the political arena, Gore does more damage in that he is able to maintain his ongoing conflict of interest where carbon emissions is concerned (through Generation Investment Management) and not have to defend his claims in open debate. a double win for the Boracle. Not bad for a failed presidential candidate.

Tags:

Gore Boracle Nobel Peace Prize Moonbat Star Tribune An Inconvenient Truth Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Apparently, in the eyes of NARAL and the Christian Coalition of America, I must be un-American. Why? Today the Red Star Tribune ran an editorial coauthored by Nancy Keenan (NARAL) and Roberta Combs (CCA) on how Verizon is "censoring" content. From their opinion piece:

Free speech shouldn't stop when you turn on your computer or pick up your cell phone. But recent actions by the nation's biggest communications corporations should be of grave concern to all who care about public participation in our democracy, particularly our leaders in Congress.

The last I checked, free speech hasn't stopped on my computer (as evidenced by this blog and the many other blogs out there, and some are really OUT THERE) or when I use my cell phone, which I rarely use. So what are they talking about?

Last month, Verizon Wireless refused to approve NARAL Pro-Choice America's application for a text-messaging "short code," a program that enables people to voluntarily sign up to receive updates by texting a five-digit code. When NARAL Pro-Choice America protested, the nation's second-largest wireless carrier initially claimed the right to block any content "that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory."

After news of Verizon's censorship hit the front page of the New York Times and sparked a public outcry, the company quickly backpedaled. Verizon issued an apology and blamed the blocking on a "dusty internal policy," while still reserving the right to block text messages in the future at its discretion.

First off, Verizon does not, nor is it capable of censorship. That is something only governments can do. Businesses can refuse to distribute certain types of content, just as many web hosting providers enforce their policies concerning content by stating that their customers can not post pornographic material (as well as many other types of content) on websites that they are hosting. Message texting with short codes such as detailed in the Verizon complaint is clearly content distribution that has to traverse their (Verizon's) infrastructure, and Verizon has the right to determine the kinds of content that they will allow to be transmitted on their systems. If they opened it wide up, then all kinds of offensive content could be freely transmitted, including pornographic and obscene material. This is why they put controls in place, to prevent their infrastructure from being used for the delivery of such material.

Now, I can agree that they probably shouldn't limit access to political activities, however it is still within their legal and constitutional rights to say whom they will serve, just as businesses can put up signs "no shoes, no service". It is a business decision than can, and obviously did, have some consequences that Verizon now has to deal with. It also sounds, at least according to the opinion piece (there are no facts to validate the assertions) that Verizon blamed it on an old policy, which has further acerbated the problem.

When it comes to censoring free speech, sorry isn't good enough. Whatever your political views -- conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, prochoice or prolife -- it shouldn't be up to Verizon to determine whether you receive the information you requested. Why should any company decide what you choose to say or do over your phone, your computer or your BlackBerry? Technologies are converging in our communications system, but the principles of free expression and the rights of all Americans to speak without intervention should remain paramount.

Businesses have a right to determine who they will sell to, just as Dell exercised its rights several years ago when they refused to sell computer hardware to a gun dealer (the left didn't harangue Dell over that one!). They also have a right to determine what content they are willing to distribute, just as many web hosting services refuse to carry pornographic and other obscene material.

Again, this is not censorship. As for "free expression" I take that NARAL and the CCA are okay with forcing Verizon to allow the transmission of obscene material.

If corporations can't tell Americans what to say on a phone call, they shouldn't be able to control content or tell us what to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else.

To the best of my knowledge, they don't make any attempts to control what is in our e-mail, although some do provide controls to limit the attempts of spammers using their infrastructure by spammers. Again, if they are providing a service, they have a right to make certain determinations of how that service is used. Publishable content, which is the real issue here, is something that communications companies can exert control over what is transmitted over their infrastructure. If a business wants to publish porno, all they have to do is find a service provider willing to let them publish their pornographic content and power to them.

That's something all Americans -- regardless of their political views -- can agree on.

Nope, because these ladies are wrong in their assertions: this is not censorship nor is it a limit on free speech. I can agree that Verizon may have screwed up in refusing to carry NARALs content, if NARAL was the only one being denied access while organizations with the opposite view were able to access the same services denied NARAL. However, if Verizon were treating all organizations with the same rules, then it isn't a problem, and certainly not a constitutional one as the government is not the one limiting the transmission of content, but a private business. If Keenan and Combs had stated that Verizon had dropped the ball on this one, then I would be in agreement with them, regardless of their political views.

Tags:

NARAL Constitution Free Speech Verizon Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 7:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Have you ever noticed how the Left is always prepared to vilify America and the Bush Administration for any perceived infringement on civil rights, yet they are totally silent when it comes to such countries as Cuba, North Korea, China, and Venezuela? The latest from Caracas is that Comrade Chavez is calling the Church leadership "morally unacceptable" in response to a statement released by the Catholic bishops statement accusing Chavez of concentrating power with his latest proposal to make himself dictator of Venezuela.

From News24:

Chavez's reform plan, which voters are expected to approve in a December referendum, also includes allowing security forces to detain citizens without charge during political "emergencies" or major natural disasters.

"Political emergencies?" Sounds like anyone who disagrees with Comrade Chavez had better watch out, as Venezuela will be in a constant state of "political emergency" if this communist dictator gets his way. What other excuses will this tin-plated dictator come up with as a means to incarcerate Venezuelans without charge? If this were proposed in the U.S., the streets would be filled with protesters. Instead, we are treated to a parade of celebrities hobnobbing with the Comrade.

I am still hopeful that the people of Venezuela will wake up soon and pull the wool out of their eyes before it is too late.

Tags:

Chavez Venezuela

Posted by Sqotty at 6:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

My wife and daughter came back from their extended trip to California (I had been back a week already) on Wednesday night after a grueling flight home. The flight, like so many of them, and all flights involved in this recent trip, suffered huge delays. It was past midnight before we got home.

With there return and other events on the agenda, this has really crimped my writing time down to nearly zip. I'd rather have them back and zero time to write than still be pining away for their safe return.

There's been a lot to write about. Unfortunately, close to zero time to do so.

Some quick notes:

Barbara Boxer, California's #1 Moonbat, is elated that Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore has received the Nobel Peace Prize for his propaganda work on Global Warming.

Northfield, Minnesota, continues to play host to a weekly pro-terrorist rally on Saturdays. What do you expect from a small city with two liberal Liberal Arts Colleges in town.

Bobby Jindal, Republican, wins the governorship of Louisiana, becoming the youngest governor at the age of 36. The son of Indian immigrants, this is someone who knows how to live the American Dream.

And this week I spotted two Bald Eagles and a Golden Eagle flying around my house. You can't see that in California!

Tags:

Moonbat Boxer Gore Jindal

Posted by Sqotty at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Randi Rhodes story has blossomed into something that one can only expect from the hard-left. From the Daily News:

Air America radio host Randi Rhodes is temporarily off the air, but claims she was brutally attacked near her Manhattan apartment are bogus, her lawyer and a police source said today.

Fellow host Jon Elliott claimed on the liberal radio network that Rhodes had been mugged while walking her dog, Simon, on Sunday night. Elliot, who said Rhodes lost several teeth in the attack, waxed about a possible conspiracy.

"Is this an attempt by the right-wing, hate machine to silence one of our own?" he asked on the air, according to Talking Radio, a blog. "Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we're winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?"

The article goes on to state that Rhodes fell and hit her head while walking her dog. Rhodes has not filed a police report nor claimed to have been mugged. The whole idea that she was mugged "by the right-wing hate machine" is a fabrication, either by Air America host Jon Elliot or by a blogger at Air America.

October 16-NEW YORK-On Sunday evening, October 14, Air America host Randi Rhodes experienced an unfortunate incident hindering her from hosting her show. The reports of a presumed hate crime are unfounded. Ms. Rhodes looks forward to being back on the air on Thursday.

Amazing…I started writing this piece this morning, didn't finish, and checked the originating blogger post, and guess what I found. The guy at Talking Radio Blog has perpetrated a hoax. His reasoning is that he is retaliating against Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment and the context it was made, so he cooked up his context on the Randi Rhodes story, now claiming that the context was in the sense that Liberal Talk Radio is frequently attacked by "right-wingers." And people, including those at Air America, bought into it, with many main-stream blogs linking to his original post. This explains why his post, which referred to an Air America blog and he quoted, links back to his blog. This is what I suspected was the case.

Here's what the hoaxer now says(no link...cut and paste: talkingradio.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-difference-day-makes.html):

When 41 members of the U.S. Senate and members of the anti-Iraq war veterans group votevets.org expressed outrage over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldier" remark, the right-wing talk show host said that his critics didn't consider the "context" in which his remark was made.

Well, we too have a "context" issue. Our coverage of the alleged attack on Randi Rhodes was presented in the "context" of several very real politically motivated attacks against liberal stations and talk hosts. We chronicled the recent shooting at a lib talk station in Houston, a death threat directed to Stephanie Miller, and a beating received by Tom Leykis. We also, referred to several incidents that may be forgotten because they occurred several years ago - e.g. shots fired at Thom Hartmann's car, transmitters blown up in Texas, and most tragically, the murder of lib talk show host Alan Berg.

So, his context is that he is upset about some stuff purported to have taken place but no one has ever heard of, therefore it is okay to claim that a liberal talk show host was mugged in an anti-liberal hate crime.

This is the kind of idiot I served my country to protect and give the right to free speech. To me a hoax like this is the same as going into a movie theater and shouting "fire" when there isn't one. I wonder if this peckawood ever served in the Armed Forces…

Tags:

Randi Rhodes Hate Crime Talking Radio Air America Hoax

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Vladimir Putin, Russia's leader, looks to be siding quite heavily with Iran where it comes to developing nuclear technology, and warning the U.S. in regards to staging any military action against Iran as a response to its nuclear development programs.

Putin is dead-set on delivering on Russia's commitment to Iran in building a nuclear reactor and getting it online. He has stated that no nation in the Caspian Sea region should allow its territory to be used in an attack on another Caspian nation. This is in regards to reports that the U.S. may use Azerbaijan, a former Soviet satellite state, as a staging ground for an attack on Iran. Currently, the U.S. does not have such plans (but I hope they have something in development).

Also addressed is a demand that any oil pipeline project that goes through any Caspian Sea nation must be backed by all five nations in the region. With Iran and Russia, who are obviously in league with each other, as two of those nations, it is clearly an attempt to block any pipelines that would help deliver oil to Western countries (like the U.S.). Especially since currently proposed pipeline projects would bypass Russia.

The question is, how will Putin enforce this on the other nations that comprise the Caspian Sea region? With tanks and hobnailed boots like they used throughout Eastern Europe during the heydays of the Soviet Union? Are the nations of the Caspian Sea region sovereign nations able to decide for themselves who they will ally with and whether or not they will let foreign troops into their country to deal with a serious nuclear threat posed by a neighboring nation that is controlled by a totalitarian theocracy?

We already know that Iran will cooperate fully with Putin in regards to these two issues, as they are the potential target of any military forces that might be staged in that region. They would also not be part of any proposed pipeline as long as they have a fascist theocracy in place.

Iran's nuclear program is clearly a threat to Western civilaizatioin as even if they don't use the tech directly for the development of nuclear bombs, they will, without any doubt, be a provider of nuclear materials to Islamic terrorist groups and assist them in developing delivery systems (which ain't that hard to do). Iran has been regularly caught supplying terrorist groups and sectarian death squads in Iraq. Can we truly believe that they wouldn't start providing high-quality uranium or plutonium to these same types of people?

From BreitBart:

Putin has warned the U.S. and other nations against trying to coerce Iran into reining in its nuclear program and insists peaceful dialogue is the only way to deal with Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment.

Like that really worked with North Korea, who regularly lied through their teeth about their actual plans for nuclear tech that we, the American taxpayer, were forced to pay for courtesy of Jimmy Carter and the Clinton Administration (and that's something to keep in mind with Hillary in the presidential race for 2008).

We also tried for years to deal with Saddam Hussein through the U.N. and its Security Council and let him continue to take potshots at U.S. aircraft in the region, a direct violation, by Hussein, of the cease-fire agreement.

Iran's rejection of the council's demand and its previous clandestine atomic work has fed suspicions in the U.S. and other countries that Tehran is working to enrich uranium to a purity usable in nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is only wants lesser-enriched uranium to fuel nuclear reactors that would generate electricity.

A trick Iran learned from North Korea.

Putin summed things up with intentions of negotiating on behalf of the United States (in regards to being on the U.N. Security Council). Let's hope someone has the smarts to tell him "no thanks." Putin has a vested interest in Iran's nuclear program as Russia is building the reactor. Can we say conflict of interest?

More and more, Putin is resembling many of the dictators of the pre-WW2 era. And that is something that we should also be concerned about.

Tags:

Putin Iraq Caspian Sea Nukes

Posted by Sqotty at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

See original post as well.

Silicon 2007 was a big success with attendance easily topping last year. According to a staffer I spoke to, there were over 1,000 attendees, including staff, volunteers (can't run a con with out 'em) guests and kids in tow.

Silicon 2007 also hit an important milestone by selling out their room block. This is important as it helps a con get discounts on the function rooms from the hotel as the hotel is able to make good revenue by selling room nights.

As I mentioned earlier, there were a number of great panels providing how-to on special effects makeup and casting latex appliances. Cool stuff. Also, the film festival is a big hit with Silicon with more entries.

This year's undeclared theme was horror film. I'm not a big fan of modern day horror films, as I tend to prefer the classic Universal monster pics of the '30s and '40s. They did have some hot animated films and other fun stuff, including a parody of the WW2 training films featuring zombies.

On the downside, I wasn't able to attend some of the panels I was most interested in. Kind of hard to get on the road to a con with a two-year old to get ready.

The dealers room had a few different non-standard tables from what you typically see. One was a table of reps from Smooth-on, a special effects materials supplier. They ran a couple of how-to panels and answered a lot of questions on casting materials, etc.

The best part about Silicon was hanging out with some of my friends that I don't see too often since I moved to Minnesota. It was good to get caught up with them and pal around, and Tilly the Wonderdog is always a treat to see.

What was surprising is that Mitchell, who is one of the Klingons of the IKV Bloodlust and a buddy for over ten years now, went to the same high school I went to. A couple of years after me, so there was no chance of crossing paths there. Small world!

The party scene was top notch with a lot of good parties. The Black Hole Bar, hosted by the Bloodlust, was probably the best decorated and serving the best booze.

Silicon may not be drawing big name actors to it. by skipping the big price actors they are able to bring in substantially more people involved in the film industry capable of putting on demos and how-to's which is far more interesting than listening to someone like Leonard Nimoy reliving his glory days.

I have one negative to say. One of the video production exhibitors was showing clips from their film in the main hallway which is very public. Now normally I wouldn't give a rat's you-know-what, but this was graphic sexual content from a racist-porno film. I also really don't care about the movie's content. It's the displaying of graphic sex scenes where children are present that got my goat. There were also some other inappropriate antics by the strippers (they call themselves "dancers) who were featured in this porno film. Fortunately other people voiced their disgust with Con-Comm. That was the one negative with Silicon.

Photos:

Gene and Mary	Geek!
Doctor Who and his new companion	Sara and Gene, agents of KAOS
Anna with a monster	FX demo
prop room	prop room
Mary as the Doctor	Not sure who this is
ambulance from Firefly	Masked Mustang and a Princess
Cassandra, the Last Human	Guitar!
Qayla	Katah
Pete	Sqotty with the gang

Tags:

Silicon Fandom Klingon KAG ROFF

Posted by Sqotty at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

This was in the Opinion pages of the Star Tribune the other day. It's by a left-wingnut complaining about the lack of participation at a recent rally to support terrorism (they call them "peace" rallies). In it she writes:

In Ken Burns' recent series, "The War," a veteran says the military knew that the longest a person could endure combat before going totally nuts was 240 days. We've been in Iraq roughly 1,650 days now, and though God knows most of us haven't been asked to do much more than sell off our children's future, I think we're all going a little nuts.

When people talk about the longest time a person can withstand the stresses of combat as being 240 days, they are talking 240 consecutive days on the battle lines without any rest and recreation time. The same logic she uses to come up with 1,650 days in Iraq as being equivalent to 240 consecutive days of combat would mean that the 1,346 days of WW2 for the U.S. would mean that every serviceman during that war should have gone nuts. She also fails to acknowledge that our troops serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan) receive regular R and R. They even had a gaming convention back in June (and a successful one at that).

This is not to say our troops in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Kosovo, where we have been involved even longer) are not under substantial stress, 'cause thy are. This is why the deployments are limited in duration, anywhere from four months to 16 months (last I heard, that's the max). Then they come back to the States. After a chance to recuperate and rearm, they are sometimes deployed for a second (or third) tour. But all during the time of their deployment they get time off to kick back and relax (as best as one can under these circumstances).

She also claims that we are selling off our children's futures, yet Congress does exactly that when they increase taxes to provide welfare to people to lazy to get a job, or insists on top-down management of our local schools when it should be left to the municipality involved (the more layers of bureaucracy, the more things cost and the less you get for your bucks), or fails to secure our borders and deal with the illegal immigrant problem.

Then she rants about how Republicans don't care about children, health care and schooling. The fact of the matter is that we do care. Health care is a parental responsibility (something I take serious where my daughter is concerned) and education is very important and parents should have the right to choose the best education for their children and pay for that which they use. What I mean by that is that school vouchers should be implemented so that all parents have a choice and maybe the public schools will get their act together. We also need to get the Feds out of our public schools. They cause dramatic increases in the costs for zero benefit.

Iraq is a never-ending nightmare, and the Decider's mind seems decided on something catastrophic for Iran. We're drowning in debt. Our health-care system is great -- for those who can afford it. It's October and 80 degrees outside. Creepy.

Nightmare? She hasn't been over there so how would she know what it is like (I haven't either). It may well be a nightmare for the Iraqis being targeted by al Qaeda terrorists there and the sectarian death squads. It is certainly becoming a nightmare for those murdering thugs that insist on killing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Something catastrophic for Iran? We have Jimmy Carter to thank for that if we do have to go into Iran to stop them from becoming the purveyor of nuclear materials to al-Qaeda.

Drowning in debt? Yep, that has been the American way for way to long, and our government isn't any better. That's one point we agree on, but for differing reasons. I suspect she is ticked off about the cost of the war whereas I am concerned about all the wasteful spending like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska, the need to reform welfare so that people are not simply getting a handout, privatizing Social Security so that my children will have something to bank on rather than getting bilked as my generation is. Our health-care system is great, and no one has ever been denied emergency medical services, regardless of ability to pay. That's why Mexico sends ambulances across the border to border town hospitals and dumps their poor on our system.

October and 80 degrees? Maybe I missed something the first week of October here in Minnesota, but it didn't hit that while I was in California, and it hasn't been much above 50 since I got back a week ago.

I could go on (and on), but why bother.

Tags:

Susan Lenfestey Moonbat Star Tribune Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Stardate, oh wait, that's pajama boy talk.

Quark's place was quiet for a Friday afternoon happy hour. Probably because Cisco has his pajama boys working overtime on a new project of his. I was on my second round of Guinness and and Tribble Sweat when Quark disled up to my spot at the bar.

"Hey, Kahuna," he said, "did you hear the news? Obama is being touted as the heir to JFK!"

"Flipper Kerry? Not surprising. He is a bit of a moonbat."

"No, not that JFK, the other one. Kennedy."

"The one with The Medal? How did they come up with that comparison? Kennedy was a hero in some ancient war while Obama doesn't even know who to salute in the armed forces. No surprise, non-military whelp that he is," I said.

"Naw, they think he's the next JFK because of his winning smile and ease in front of an audience."

"So, is he auditioning for a role a role on a TV sitcom or running for President."

"Point taken," Quark responded. "But that's the basis, at least in part, that they are making the comparison."

"Let's see: winning smile, easy with audiences, at least with the ones full of lefties…"

"And we all know leftie girls are easy," Quark interjected.

"Right. And he wants to abandon Bajor, pull the Federation out and leave it to the Cardasians to surge back in here."

"No, that's not why they think he is JFK."

"Can't be his tax policy. Kennedy implemented some of the biggest tax cuts in the history of that historical nation, the U.S.A, while Obama keeps calling for more taxation."

"They also say he has great judgement…"

"Okay Quark, we are talking about the same Barack Obama, right? The guy who has stated that he would invade a close ally if he had operation intelligence to get that dufus bin Ladin, right?'

"Uhm, yeah."

"Call that good judgment?"

"Point taken."

"Okay, how about his plan to abandon Bajor and let the Cardasians have it back. Is that like JFK?" I shot back.

"Well, JFK did abandon the Cuban refugees during the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Does that qualify?"

"Yep, sure does," I agreed. Quark is up on his Earth history. That would be similar to JFK. Kennedy had changed the original invasion plan from landing at the city of Trinidad, Cuba, where Brigade 2506 would have been able to secure help from anti-communist locals and a more defensible position to the Bay of Pigs where they had little chance of success, then they ran out of ammo as the U.S. failed to resupply them, leaving them to be cut up by Castro's troops and forced to surrender.

"So, let's sum up," I said. "JFK abandoned a close ally to a totalitarian regime, looked good in front of the camera, and cut taxes. Obama wants to abandon a fledgling ally to a totalitarian regime, looks good in front of a camera, and wants to raise taxes. Okay, two out of three ain't bad."

"Another round?" Quark asked.

"Yeah. Make it a double, will you." Debating with Quark is thirsty work.

Kahuna out.

Tags:

Obama Kahuna

Posted by Kahuna at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Jimmy Carter is back in the news in a big way, slamming the Bush Administration and calling Cheney the biggest disaster for this country since Jimmy Carter. Okay, I'm editorializing a bit there.

From Reuters:

"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said.

At least Cheney hasn't brought us double-digit inflation like Carter, nor has he allowed an ally to be deposed and his country taken over by Islamic extremists as happened to Iran in the '70s, thanks to Carter, nor has he helped a Communist dictatorship achieve nuclear weapons as Carter helped North Korea by brokering that nuclear power plant deal with the Clintons.

"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.

Like Clinton with Somalia and Bosnia? At least Bush and Cheney didn't use the Liberation of Iraq as a means of shifting media attention away from extra-marital affairs like Clinton.

It sounds to me as though Carter is still bitter over his own failures as President and the fact that HIS Administration was the worst in American history. (This is not an opinion but a fact.)

Tags:

Carter Moonbat Cheney Bush Iran Iraq Clinton

Posted by Sqotty at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Looks like the Global Warming Loons are at it again, this time Downunder and encouraging eating roo meat instead of beef.

From Herald Sun

The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.

Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas.

Something to think about: raising more kangaroos for human consumption in place of cattle will not do much, if anything, to reduce the amount of green house gas emissions. They will have to raise significantly more of the critters to match the consumable output of a good steer, and it doesn't taste as good as a classic t-bone steak. Nor is a leg of roo as appealing as a leg of lamb.

It also coincides with recent calls from climate change experts for people in rich countries to reduce red meat and switch to chicken and fish because land-clearing and burping and farting cattle and sheep were damaging the environment.

Chickens don't pass gas? That's news to me. Try riding your bike past a poultry farm and see how nice it smells. Okay, pigs smell worse than poultry.

I like chicken, fish, turkey, duck, and so on. But how much of the land does grazing live stock damage? I wish I had a copy of the report that shows that a significant amount of the land used for pasturing cattle is ill-suited for row crops like tomatoes.

As for eating roo instead of red meat, I've had roo. It's okay but it ain't beef.

Tags:

Kangaroo Meat Australia Green Peace Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Moonbats of Berkeley have displayed, in living PINK, exactly what they think of our military. I was in the California for the past, and on my drive to the airport to catch my early morning flight I was tuned in to KSFO and the Melanie Morgan show where I learned about the recent assault and vandalization of a Maine Officer Recruitment Office in Berkeley. According to the report it was the Moonbats of Code Pink that were behind this crime.

Michelle Malkin has much more on this.

Tags:

Code Pink Marine Vandalism Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Just when we thought it wasn't possible for the Nobel Peace Prize to become even less relevant than when it was after being awarded to Jimmy Carter (the man who brought us a totalitarian theocracy in Iran, fostered Islamic Terrorism, and helped arm North Korea with nuclear weapons), the International Peace Research Institute has announced that it has nominated Gore for the Peace Prize for his work on Global Warming.

Why would they award the Peace Prize to one of the biggest contributors to Global Warming, the man with the carbon footprint the size of Mount Everest, is beyond me. Political expediency does come to mind.

From Times Online:

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel peace prize is making a difference and Al Gore has made a difference," said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister who nominated Gore and Watt-Cloutier.

"I think they are likely winners this year," said Stein Toennesson, director of Oslo's International Peace Research Institute. The winner will receive $1.5m (£750,000) in prize money.

It sounds to me more of a case of building on the fear that it is man-caused carbon emissions causing global warming rather than on the natural cycles of the Earth, Sun, and solar system, as being the reason to give the Boracle the Peace Prize. It is a blatant attempt to further legitimize a badly formed theory for the causes of Global Warming over the vast amount of research being done that proves a different theory as being the real cause of the current warming trend.

The article has a couple of extremely biased statements in it:

Global temperatures will rise 2.5C within the next century even if the world hits its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the scientist leading research into the issue.

Okay, they are potentially half-right: temperatures are likely to increase even if greenhouse emissions are cut (no thanks to Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore). The problem is the use of "will rise." This is all theory not fact. Will temperatures rise 2.5C? Maybe. But we won't know until 2100, and there is a likelihood that the Earth will go through a slight cooling trend before then due to cycles in sun spot activity. To claim that it is a fact that temperatures "will rise 2.5C" is very biased and bad reporting.

Consequences could include widespread starvation, as farm yields fall 50% in parts of Africa, water shortages for 300m and the destruction of 20-30% of species.

More bias and missing quite a few points.

Widespread starvation and drops in farm yields in Africa will be offset by the agricultural production in northern regions of Canada, Europe, Asia, and even Greenland will become farmable again as it was during the last major warming phase: the Middle Ages (or Viking Age). With greater farming capacity offsetting the potential reduced farming capacity in areas that become to hot and arid, combined with better/faster transportation of goods, starvation may well not happen, unless we allow those many corrupt regimes in Africa to continue to exist (the main cause of starvation in Africa is corrupt governments, not lack of food supplies).

Water shortages can also be counterbalanced by building desalination plants to provide fresh water for drinking, bathing, and watering crops.

As for the destruction of 20-30% of species, this is an unknown but dubious claim. Just a few days ago a number of new species of plants and animals were discovered in Vietnam. Will Global Warming also trigger the rise of other new species? Will the species that do go extinct do so as a result of Global Warming (doubtful) or the activities of man (like the dodo bird or golden frog)? Or will they merely migrate along with the changing climate?

If Al Gore is given the Nobel Peace Prize, then it will be clear that the International Peace Research Institute is no longer interested in promoting Peace in the world, but rather pushing a politicized agenda on humanity.

Tags:

Gore Nobel Peace Prize Boracle Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

We are two-thirds of the way through Silicon 2007 and this is the first opportunity I have had to post. It's been that crazy of a week (and most of it without Internet access).

Silicon has a plethora of guests, predominantly from the direct to video horror film industry. This also includes the Independent and Fan Film Festival which is predominantly horror film oriented, no surprise as this year's theme is horror films.

Special Effect Make-up artists held several demonstrations yesterday using various latex based appliancs. I only caught one of these, but I did see the Italian Zombie running around at one point.

There were quite a few entries in the Masquarade, with our favorite being the Masked Mustang, which is a furry horse super hero. There was also a very cool powered Dalek in the Masquarade. I'll post pictures tomorrow.

The party scene, which was good on Friday night, went into high gear on Saturday with the Klingons, not unexpectedly, having the livliest party, serving up Phaser Shots and Disruptor Blasts. The BSG group had a fun party as did the SF/SF Internet Fanzine, which was celebrating their 50th issue.

Good parties, and good times. Lots to see and do, and not enough time to take it all in.

Silicon has been well attended, no idea what the turnout is, somewhere around 800, maybe a bit more.

It has also been good to catch up with a lot of friends we haven't seen since last year.

One more day to go, then homeward bound for me.

Tags:

Silicon Fandom Klingon KAG

Posted by Sqotty at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Saturday night was my high school reunion. The turnout, for me, was a bit of a disappointment. This was the reunion for the Class of '77 McLane Highlanders. All told, there were about a hundred people in attendance, including spouses. A lot of people that I was looking forward to seeing were distinctly absent. Of those who were there, I knew that Eric Cruthlow and Tommie Nellon would be there mainly because I called Eric the week before.

Reunion Attendees

Eric and Tommie were both pipers and I was a drummer in the McLane Pipers and Dancers. Rob Lowder, another drummer from the Pipe Band, and Cathy Van Stone, one of the Dancers were there as well. It was darn good to see all of them and meet their spouses (Eric's wife was unable to make it.) There were a number of others from the Pipers and Dancers I was looking forward to seeing who were not there, some of them are still here in Fresno.

(left to right: Rob Lowder, Todd Hansen, Cathy Van Stone, Tommie Nellon, Eric Crutchlow)

I suspect that the low turnout was predominantly due to the high price of the tickets: $89 a month in advance and $99 at the door. That means if you bring your spouse (I brought Sue with me) you are talking $200. Then drinks are on top of that. Not everyone can afford to drop that kind of change for an evening out, especially since gas is still in the $3 per gallon range. The high price made me think twice about going, but we came as it was an opportunity for our daughter Anna to get to spend time with her grand parents.

The reunion was run by Great Reunions. Just a guess, but I suspect that that had something to do with the big ticket price. There was also a professional photographer who made CDs of her work available at the end of the evening at $20 a pop.

For the friends from those days who were there, it was darn great to get to see them again and catch up. Rob races sprint cars and teaches art. Who'd have thought?

Surprisingly, I am not the only member of the Class of '77 with a two year old.

I really had hoped to run into some pf the other Pipers and Dancers, especially Laura, Jann, Tanya, Steve, and Brian. It would have also been great to see Bill Smith, Ron Long, David Minasian and a few others from those days.

McLane Pipers and Dancers

The current generation of Pipers and Dancers performed for us, and we were darn glad to see them. You see, it sounds like the program is in jeopardy. They need new instruments and uniforms, The reunion had a pass the hat to raise some funding for the program as well as another at risk program, the Highlander Project which has been putting the year books on the web. I don't know how much was raised, but I know it was a pretty penny.

One thing that is coming out of this is I pulled the Pipers and Dancers who were there aside and had a chat about the possibility of organizing a Pipers and Dancers Reunion for All Years. And I do mean all years. Something that would be an opportunity to get them all together, friends, families, band teachers, and so on. Since every class overlapped with four other years, there is a long chain of Pipers and Dancers who are connected through their participation with this unique program at McLane. We all forged great friendships during those years. I was already thinking of this when before we hit the reunion and was glad that those of us there were all in favor of it. Eric said he will put up a website for it, and we're going to do some research to start contacting folks. Should be fun. More on that later.

The McLane Pipers and Dancers, the kids that are in it now, are just like we were. Good kids interested in music and dancing and having a good time. They put on a great performance for us and we all cheered them on. It was great having them perform for us.

C.L. McLane High School McLane Pipers and Dancers Reunion

Posted by Sqotty at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions