A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Uncle Ted`s Slovakian Vacation

It seems Ted Kennedy took a vacation (under an assumed name) in the mountains of Slovakia, and ran into some car trouble. Fortunately, he`s always prepared!

Click the Header above.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

The Deafening Silence

When Al Gore challenged the outcome of the election in Florida in 2000 we were treated to a mantra about the importance of counting every vote, and about how evil the Republicans were for trying to suppress voter turnout. Black voters were chased away by Republicans in police squad cars parked 4 or 5 blocks away, they told us. Elderly voters were tricked into believing that the election had been postponed, they said. Voters were tricked into voting for Pat Buchanan because the Republicans kidnapped their people and replaced them with body doubles who redesigned the ballots to trick honest Democrats into voting for the Fascist Party (of course, military ballots had to be disposed of since, as we all know, they are part of the fascist military industrial complex). The Republicans tried to suppress the vote,they bleated, and that was wrong, wrong, wrong!

In the `04 election we were again treated to this same litany of complaints, and told how, of all the Republican sins, the greatest of these was unfair vote counting. The Democrats challenged the results in Ohio, complaining that voting machines were rigged for Bush. They even dragged the certification of the election out in Congress, admitting it was an exercise in futility but claiming ``the process`` required this to protect the peoples right to vote. (But, of course, they are not obstructionist.) It seems every vote-including those of the deceased, the imprisoned, and Mary Poppins-MUST be counted (and often) or the democratic process is in peril.

That`s why the silence on Iraq is so deafening. Al-Zarqawi and his People for the Islamic Way attack polling places, blowing away innocent people to prevent a free election, and we hear a roaring silence from those stalwart defenders of democracy and the higher principle of counting every vote. WHERE IS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY??? Why aren`t we hearing from Greg Craig, from Al Gore, from Terry McAuliff? Where is that great defender of liberty, Michael Moore? The right to vote was sooo precious to them when they were on the losing end. Now it isn`t worth mentioning. Why?

I`ll tell you why. During the election of `04 several Republican campaign headquarters were firebombed or shot at. Doesn`t that seem vaguely familiar? It seems the Democrats and the ``insurgents`` have similar methods; bomb your enemies to keep them from getting out the vote. (Have the insurgents hired James Carville to advise them?) The Democrats wanted Bush to lose in `04, and they want him to lose now. They don`t CARE about the fairness of elections, or about national security. All they care about is vengence; they dream of dragging Bush and those ``neocons`` down, and damn the costs!

During the election season John Kerry frequently rose up on his high jackass in a rage if anyone dared say anything which could be construed a challenge to his patriotism. We heard this refrain from the entire Democrat establishment; ``how dare you question our patriotism``. Well, I DARE!! A party who endlessly attacks the commander in chief, attacks the whole reason for war, claims it is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, who claims it is to make money for Bush`s ``oil buddies``, who holds up money, and support, and who accuses our soldiers of war crimes, is the very definition of unpatriotic. THEY CAN`T EVEN CONDEMN OUR ENEMIES FOR BOMBING POLLING PLACES! Yes, they have condemned THEMSELVES with their own mouths! The Democrats have no patriotism. They do not love their country. All they care about is their own fortunes, their own power. The silence is deafening!

In bygone years the opposition party was loyal in time of war(that`s why they were called the loyal opposition). Politics, it was said, ended at the water`s edge; no more. This all changed when the Democrats lost power. The important thing, the only thing, is reacquiring that power-all else must be sacrificed to this end. Soldiers must die, freedom must be squelched (in Iraq and elsewhere), our national security must be compromised-EVERYTHING must be subordinated to the Democrats lust for power. The ghost of George Orwell haunts the halls of the Party caucus; the purpose of power,said Orwell in his novel 1984, is power. That is all they know, and all they understand.

This is one of the most shameful displays in the history of the Republic. Future scholars will marvel at the spectacle of one of the two governing parties in the United States essentially turning traitor. History will judge them very, very harshly.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

The Two Faces of Hillary

Life is full of strange dichotomy; the marriage of Mary Matalin and James Carville, the film success of Mel Gibson and Michael Moore, microbreweries and Bud Lite,Relativity and quantum physics, Global Warming and the recent freezing blizzards. The Romans, ever a practical people, even named a god to govern this; Janus. Janus had two faces, peering into the past and future. He was the god of dichotomy. He was the original oxymoron.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham could well be the modern equivalent of Janus; they both think they`re gods, and one of them (Bill) gazes to past glory while the other (HIllary) looks to her future. Bill is warm and personable while Hillary is frosty and bitter. Bill spreads love to all womenkind, Hillary would freeze a man solid. Bill works very hard to originate life within young, innocent girls, while Hillary supports the removal of said life through free, unfettered abortion. Oh, and both of them have two faces.

Hillary has always seemed to me to be the female personification of the Grim Reaper; she is as warm as liquid Helium and presents a dark and fearsome visage. It was said that Bill froze in terror when word reached him that Hillary had returned early from an ``outing``. (Personally, I suspect she was out harvesting souls.)
One piercing stare was said to freeze Bill in his tracks. She clearly has natural talent as the death head; she has been a strong supporter of abortion throughout her entire adult life. Don`t let her fool you now. Who is it that comes for the souls of the unborn on the slice-and-dice tables of Planned Parenthood? Is Hillary the last (and only) thing they see?

The New York Times (the nytwits) has a piece on Hillary today in which they claim she is trying to find compromise between the Witches of NOW and the Pro-Lifers. Riiiight! Read part of it here:

Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions

By PATRICK D. HEALY, The New York Times


ALBANY (Jan. 24) - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.

"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate - we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.

Her speech came on the same day as the annual anti-abortion rally in Washington marking the Roe v. Wade anniversary.

Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.

Mrs. Clinton, widely seen as a possible candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008, appeared to be reaching out beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights. She did so not by changing her political stands, but by underscoring her views in preventing unplanned pregnancies, promoting adoption, recognizing the influence of religion in abstinence and championing what she has long called "teenage celibacy."

Now, this from my January archives:

Skating on Thin Ice
Why haven`t we heard more about this in the mainstream media? Hillary manages to offend just about every red state American with this load of buffalo chip dip (not that she had thick, pre-global warming ice to skate on). We need to keep these little slip-ups of hers in the public consciousness for her presidential run; if everyone really knew what she was all about she wouldn`t stand a snowmans chance in the post-global warming world of gaining any traction.

Senator Hillary Clinton Blasts Bush Administration over Abortion
NEW YORK, January 12, 2005 ( – Abortion crusader and New York Senator Hillary Clinton condemned US President George W. Bush Tuesday, claiming his withdrawal of funding from organizations that commit or promote abortions is harming women. Speaking at an International Women's Health Coalition-sponsored dinner, Clinton claimed that "reproductive health care and family planning service is a basic right," and said this was based on decisions reached at the 1994 U.N. Population Conference in Cairo, as well as the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing, where Clinton gave a keynote address. She argued that the Bush administration has failed to uphold the so-called reproductive rights of women, by withdrawing funding from abortion-supporting organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).Clinton also maintained that the President’s focus on abstinence in sex education was hampering efforts to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, despite the UN’s own admission that condom failure rate for preventing HIV transmission may be as high as 20 percent. "ABC is a good strategy, but it has three parts to it and we need to remind the administration of that". The highly successful Ugandan ABC program first emphasizes abstinence, being faithful within marriage, and lastly, condom use, as measures to prevent the HIV transmission rate. Experts say the Ugandan success is comparable to a "highly effective vaccine." The last, least emphasized and least effective part of the Ugandan program, which involves condoms, is presumably the component that Clinton was referring to.The innocuous-sounding International Women's Health Coalition promotes abortion and contraception through funding programs in Africa, South and Central America. Their web site describes “. . . the world's most challenging health and rights issue” as “comprehensive sexuality education for adolescents and young adults.”IWHC also actively opposes the Bush administration policies that oppose the funding of abortion. “We have worked with other organizations and governments to defeat U.S. efforts at meetings in Asia and at the UN to remove ‘reproductive health’ and other key phrases from negotiating texts,” their web site states.

Does anyone doubt that this is the real Hillary?

Who is she trying to fool?

Statesmen and Partisans

We have seen our vulnerability -- and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. ... Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. ... The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." --President George W. Bush, Inauguration Day 2005, an "American Revolutionary" as Time magazine noted when naming President Bush its 2004 "Person of the Year."

"The President's philosophical framing of America's fundamental embrace of freedom was important. The President failed, however, to lay out the specific sacrifices Americans will face in the days and years ahead. In fact, in a seventeen minute address that ran more than 2,000 words, the President used the word sacrifice but once. After the loss of almost 1,400 soldiers in Iraq and with the cost of war soon to exceed $200 billion, the people of New Jersey and the nation want to know what more is expected of them and what sacrifices they will have to make. ... I stand ready to work with President Bush to achieve great things for our nation and New Jersey. We confront great challenges both at home and abroad. The President had an opportunity today to be straight with the American people about the long road ahead and the sacrifices they will be asked to make. In that respect, his remarks fell short of the mark." --New Jersey Demo Sen. Jon Corzine

In the AP interview, Kennedy questioned how much of a threat Saddam Hussein had posed in the U.S. fight against terrorism.

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," the Massachusetts Democrat told the AP.

He said Bush officials employed "distortion, misrepresentation, a selection of intelligence" to justify the war.

Monday, January 24, 2005


Poetry Renewal has risen from the ashes! If you like poetry with a conservative bent, or poetry above the sappy, you can find it here. This is a formalist site; editor Charles Weatherford stresses formal style and likes experimentation with obscure and unusual forms. Poetry Renewal is attempting a renaissance of traditional verse.

Poetry has traditionally been an important art form in many cultures and eras. It has died a rather pathetic death in these United States in recent years thanks to the libs domination over the genre. It was not always so; poetry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was considered a major branch of the Humanities, and was often used to satirize a political opponent or movement. It was a major propoganda tool, and had a venerable position in many elections. The twentieth century saw it`s long, slow demise thanks to ``free verse`` poetry and avante-guarde liberal usurpation. Today, poetry has no appeal to the masses except in song lyrics. It has become the haunt of pointy-headed academics or romantic little girls.

Sites like Poetry Renewal are attempting to revive the old forms and revitalize the entire genre. It`s good to see they are back!

Click on the title of this post to be taken to their website. There you will find yours truly has a Pantoum (which is a Malay form of poem, in honor of the tsunami victims) published. Those who have followed this site (you, may loyal fan)will recognize it; I had named it THE LIBERAL but decided to change the title to Partisan at the last moment (I wish I hadn`t; still, it fit more than just liberals, it fit any frothing-at-the-mouth partisan).

Global Warming Gobbledygook

The U.K. Independent ran this story on the ``end of the world``; a new report saying we have only ten more years before Global Warming becomes irreversible (and we all die, implied). In 1982 the Global Warming Hot Air Heads told us we had twenty years; now it seems we`ve been given a ten year grace period! Gee, I wonder what went wrong with their calculations?

The article says the report dates the beginning of Global Warming to 1750, which they happily note coincides with the beginning of the industrial era. I burst out laughing when I read that; the Little Ice Age had just ended! Duh! Of course temperatures began to rise in the mid-eighteenth century! What a load of bat guano! I suspect the report does not mention that world temperatures STILL haven`t risen to the level of the Mideval Warming Period. This is all hot air.

Countdown to global catastrophe
Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
24 January 2005

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.

And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.

More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.

The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the vital 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise might take longer to come into effect).

"There is an ecological timebomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, who co-chaired the task force that produced the report with the US Republican senator Olympia Snowe. It was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Centre for American Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute.The group's chief scientific adviser is Dr Rakendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions.

"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now advises business.

The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," it says.

"It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. [They] could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest."

It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 metres over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon."

Notice the stupid comment by Tom Burke; ``deliver a stable ecology``. When has the ecology EVER been stable?

I guess Lex Luthor was right in Superman, the Movie! We should buy up as much inland desert property as we can; a fortune is waiting to be made on new beachfront property! Get in on the ground floor!

One final thought: The Martian atmosphere is composed almost entirely of CO2. If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas, why is Mars so damn cold?

Saturday, January 22, 2005

The Witches

I wrote this poem in memorial for all the murdered infants, and all the young mothers abused by the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood.


In dead of night the witches creep
like spiders in a bed.
In dread delight their riches reap
from young girls they`ve misled.

With lies their Devils Plot unfurls;
cajoling with forked tongue
the Witches try to trick young girls
into murdering their young.

They claw inside scared mothers womb
the unborn child their feast.
Denied the covers of the tomb
forelorn, defiled, deceased!

Stoke the furnace hot with coals!
The unborn won`t be missed!
Pour out the bowls of children`s souls
Hells` scornful Eucharist!

Then take the head; the blood runs red!
While wet with death, the Coven
they bake their bread of children dead
in Margaret Sanger`s oven!

And they devise to hide the cries
of the myriad tiny souls
whose blood decries the Witches lies
while their bodies rot in holes!

Young mothers used and then discarded
are tossed aside, confused
while at great cost and broken-hearted
they stand alone, accused.

To snuff out life before a breath
In a land where evil`s good
is Satan`s manna; the Bread of Death.
They`re called ``Planned Parenthood``.

And in the night they find delight
in Sin which brings forth Life,
then out of sight those wolves may bite
and murder with a knife.

In cursing God do all abet;
no supplication do they pray,
while with a nod and small regret
the Nation turns away.

A Day Of Mourning

Today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of Roe V. Wade, the landmark ruling which overturned state authority to restrict abortion. The Court asserted that the Constitution has an implied right to privacy written into it, and that this implied right means that States cannot make laws restricting a woman from reaching into her womb and tearing her living baby out (or having a doctor do this). How this ``right to privacy`` implied in the Constitution overrides the unborn`s right to life, which is clearly enshrined in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, is beyond me. Well, it`s not beyond me; they pull this off by saying that a baby isn`t a baby until it comes forth from the womb and sucks air. Until that point it is merely a mass of tissue to be disposed of. (I know, they set up the trimester system, assigning more ``rights`` as the fetus reaches each stage. Still, the right to an abortion remained pretty much unfettered, and most ethicists and scientists agree that the trimester system was purely an arbitrary designation by the court.) This ruling likewise was a gross violation of the principles of Federalism. The Court ran roughshod over the States right to make and administer their own laws. The Court ran roughshod over historical precedent, and our Judeao-Christian heritage.

Infanticide was always considered a terrible moral evil. Hippocrates banned the practice of abortion. In the Gospels, the ``slaughter of the innocents``, the murder of all children under two years of age in Bethlehem, stands out as an act of terrible barbarity (although there couldn`t have been very many such children in Bethlehem at that time). The Romans, prior to the Christian era, condemned the Carthaginians for the practice. (Carthage sacrificed infants to their gods Baal Hammon and Tanit.) Womb ripping, as it was called, was perhaps the worst crime imaginable during the middle ages. In America, the Aztecs practiced this occasionally, and were so reviled for it (among other things) that Cortez could raise an immense army of subject peoples who would fight with him against Montezuma. A British military officer in China wrote about the ``revolting practice`` of Chinese killing their surplus infants; it was understood then that China was weak and corrupt because of her depraved disrespect for life. Clearly, history is not on the side of this practice.

Why are the feminists and radical leftists so determined to keep abortion completely unfettered? Look to Carthage. Abortion is a sacrament, a rite of blood for the Left. Every time a woman has an abortion she is performing the high ritual of the feminist black mass. I have always argued that Liberalism is a religion; It is a religion deifying man. (The Bible speaks of another creature who deified himself, and taught his fellows to deify themselves, which led to their banishment to Hell.) Feminism deifies women. How to worship, if you are a feminist? Join the church of the NOW, rally, and push for abortions. Feminism, in my view, is a modern variant of witchcraft, complete with a blood sacrifice. A woman or young girl is wedding herself to the cause of feminism when she aborts her own child; she has circumsized her heart, as it were. She will move into the feminist camp or will have to admit she did something dreadful. She may never be free of this act.

That the most enlightened and moral nation on Earth has tolerated this abomidable practice is beyond belief. Even Jane Roe has turned against the evil worked in her (pseudonym)name. We won`t be able to remove this evil from our midst until the Supreme Court changes. Fortunately, many of those who have championed abortion on the Court are nearing the grim reaper themselves, and may consider retiring. President Bush may be able make appointments which would tip the scales towards life. Now is not the time for a ``new tone``; the President must be prepared to fight tooth and nail to get pro-life Justices on the Court.

Every argument used by the advocates of abortion on demand have evaporated like the morning dew (Oh, Lucifer, Son of the morning!) Unwed motherhood no longer holds a great social stigma, medical science has reached a point where the birth of the baby doesn`t pose much of a risk for the mother, we have an enormous social safety net (both governmental and private)to help out, childless couples are desperate to adopt and love an unwanted child; many so desperate that they travel around the world and pay huge sums to adopt because no children are left alive here in the land of the free. There is no compelling reason to murder a child in the womb.

It`s time to end this evil.

Click on the title of this post to link to the Memorial for the Unborn web page.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Exit Polling Redux

John Tabin, freelance writer and frequent American Spectator contributor, just wrote a piece about the recently released report by Mitofsky International and Edison analyzing their bogus exit polls during the `04 elections. He updates some of what I said in EXIT THE POLLS in my November archives. John is one of my favorite political analysts, with a very keen sense of how the political tree will shake. You can read his article by clicking on the link on my NEW blogroll!


It just keeps happening; our fair and balanced press keeps making the same mistakes election after election. It’s never their fault. First it was the fault of the Voter News Service, then the fault of the National Election Pool, now the blame lies with that evil genius Karl Rove. Why does it keep happening? Why does the press keep getting the exit polls so very wrong?

The media uses exit polling to give them raw data about who is voting, why they are voting that way, and how they are voting. Exit polling is intended to be a tool to help them extrapolate the real election results by giving them a statistical model with which to compare the real results. For example, if 8% of precincts report George Bush leading by 51% to 49%, and the exit polls show this number with a sampling of voters which match the actual conditions of the precinct, it is safe to extrapolate the results and call this precinct for Bush provided your model contains an adequate sampling of all voters in the precinct and can predict the timing of said votes. If your actual results show a variation from the exit polls it becomes necessary to wait until your voting pool becomes large enough for any corrections to be made to your exit poll sample. In other words, you can call an election with a small portion of precincts reporting provided your exit poll data matches up. Often this is not the case, because of the vagaries of chance and timing of polls. Also, you assume your questions will be answered honestly (not always the case). The problem with exit poll numbers is that they are a rough approximation until your sample group of voters becomes large enough to be immune to error. Early results are raw data, and not indicative of what the real results will show.

During Tuesday’s election someone leaked the early raw data to Internet bloggers, and all hell broke loose. Who leaked this, and why? Former Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris accused the Democrats of leaking this for purely political purposes, and many inside sources have suggested that this was indeed coming from the Kerry camp. If this is correct it is a cynical attempt to influence the election and is probably a violation of campaign law-someone should be going to jail over this. The early exit polls were decidedly damaging to President Bush, and may well have depressed voter turnout in the western states.

What do we really know about these exit polls? ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX NEWS, and the AP banned together to create the National Election Pool (NEP) to replace the Voter News Service after the VNS failed repeatedly to give accurate information. The Networks hired two polling agencies to conduct their exit polls; Edison Media Research and Mitofsky. Joe Lenski, cofounder of Edison, put out a statement on their website on October 28 warning the Networks (and viewers) ``Don`t be fooled by early returns``. He did make it clear that the early results would be skewed.

Edison is a company founded in 1994 by Joe Lenski and Larry Rosen. Joe Lenski, a Princeton graduate, worked for none other than the Voter News Service before opening Edison and was part of the decision team making projections for CNN and CBS from 1996-2000. Larry Rosen was likewise a Princeton graduate, attending the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International affairs, Their educational backgrounds suggest they may have a liberal bent. Their qualifications make one wonder why they were chosen to participate in the NEP considering their close association with the discredited VNS.
Likewise, Warren Mitofsky is an interesting choice; former head of the CBS Election Survey Unit and Executive Producer of election night broadcasts for CBS, Mitofsky seems to have done considerable survey work for liberal issues. He did work on the Amadou Diallo case, worked on the challenge to overturn the refusal to seat Diane Feinstein in the Senate, and worked on a legal challenge to laws against exit polling in Washington State and Florida. Mitofsky was the FOUNDER of the Voter Research and Surveys, which was the forerunner of the discredited Voter News Service.
Why did the media go to these organizations for the NEP? I am not saying that they are necessarily biased, but it is strange that people closely associated with the old Voter News Service would be put in charge of running its successor. Could the early results have been ginned up to help Kerry? Could the NEP UNCONSCIOUSLY have made judgement calls for Kerry when in doubt? Could they have CONSCIOUSLY?

The NEP was adamant; their exit polls were right on the money. Joe Lenski DID warn against reading too much into the early results. Still, it is undeniable that someone twisted the results to benefit Kerry. Those early results were WAY off. Had it been as close as 2000 the exit polls could have swung the election. Who is to blame here? We need an investigation to get to the bottom of this. These mistakes always seem to benefit Democrats. A matter of chance? I just don`t believe that.

The Networks can`t be blamed for the results; their numbers were all in agreement (including Fox News). It may be, however, that they were the source of the leaks. Certainly these numbers should not have been given to any campaign lest they be misused. Given the ridiculously one sided campaign coverage, and given the fact that the AP`s own polling made the assumption that 9 out of every 10 undecided voters would break for Kerry, it should have been obvious that anything damaging to Bush would race into the ether. The concept of media bias is no longer arguable.
The Networks continue to hide behind the skirts of the First Amendment, and callously blame their pollsters. It is perhaps time to consider what we mean by freedom of the press; we certainly do not have that in this country. Our press is an oppressive regime. It starts with the journalism schools and continues all the way to the top of the networks. Dan Rather, for instance, uses forged documents for political ends and suffers no consequences. Why? Isn`t it obvious that we need regime change at CBS?

The left simply has control of too many aspects of the dissemination of information. We will continue to face distortions, inaccuracies, and outright lies until we break the stranglehold of the left-wing media. Fortunately we have been making inroads; Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Etc. We still have a long, hard slog ahead.
One way to start is by demanding accountability. The Justice Department should pursue an investigation into this matter. We should outlaw the use of exit polling in elections. I would like to go further and demand that the press not be allowed to report ANY results until all the polls close in the United States; early reporting distorts the vote. Consider the impact of calling the ``battleground`` states on the east coast early. People in Oregon, or Alaska are still waiting in line to vote. Even if the exit polls were 100% accurate this will still affect state and local races. There simply is no good justification for rushing out potentially faulty election results (remember the press calling Florida for Gore before the Panhandle had a chance to vote in 2000?)

It`s time to seriously consider banning this over aggressive and biased reporting of election results.

It`s time to exit the polls.

We Now Have a Blogrolll!

Thanks to David Hogberg, we now have a blogroll on this site! I have been fumbling around in the dark, trying to figure out how to operate this infernal contraption, and have been unable to divine it`s sinister mysteries. David Hogberg, analyst from the Capital Research Center and American Spectator contributor, posted a link to my site on Hog Haven, his website. I e-mailed to thank him and mentioned off-hand that I would blogroll him if I could ever figure out how. He responded with an offer to help and now, thanks to Dave, I can post up a link! (granted, it may look rather crazy while I get the hang of it!)

Everyone should visit Hog Haven! Dave is one of the brightest guys out there and very funny!

Many thanks, Dave!

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Service With A Smile

Many thanks to Dave for e-mailing this. It does borderline on good taste, but what the heck!

At one time in my life, I thought I had a handle on the meaning of the word "service... the act of doing things for other people." Then I heard the terms:Internal Revenue ServicePostal ServiceTelephone ServiceCivil ServiceCity/County Public ServiceCustomer ServiceService StationsAnd I became confused about the word "service." This is not what I thought "service" meant.Then today, I overheard two farmers talking and one of them mentioned that he was having a bull over to "service" a few of his cows.SHAZAM!It all came into perspective. Now I understand what all those "service" agencies are doing to us.Have a wonderful day and I hope you are now as enlightened as I am.

Pop Quiz

This was sent to me by a friend the other day, so I thought I would post it up. John Tabin noticed a mistake; see if you can spot what it is. (Thanks for pointing that out, John.)

Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!! Do you remember? 1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a. Superman b. Jay Lenno c. Harry Potter d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c. Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: a. Lost Norwegians b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: a. A pizza delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by: a. The Smurfs b. Davy Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: a. Captain Kidd b. Charles Lindberg c. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth Fairy c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: a. Richard Simmons b. Grandma Moses c. Michael Jordan d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 10 .In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a. Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems c. The World Wrestling Federation d Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 11.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.Thousands of people were killed by: a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Mr. Bean d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: a. Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: a. Bonnie and Clyde b. Captain Kangaroo c. Billy Graham d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 Nope, . . . I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling. Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense. As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does." Come on people wake up!!! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book. Our Country and our troops need our support!

Thanks to Dave for sending this.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

More U.N. Lies About Climate Change

Sorry to keep riding this particular dead pony, but what can I do? I keep finding articles that prove my point.

A Matter of Balance
By Roy Spencer
A leading U.S. hurricane researcher at NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Dr. Chris Landsea, has resigned from the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change. The reason: To protest the personal leanings of an IPCC lead author on the subject of climate and hurricanes.
That is no small matter. The IPCC is widely considered by the world's governments to be the most authoritative source for what we know about global warming. It periodically produces reports on the sate of the science of global warming, and is currently working on its Fourth Assessment Report.

Many scientists from a variety of countries participate in this process, and the reports are packed with useful -- if often technical -- information. Unfortunately, because of the large amount of detailed analysis in the reports, they are abbreviated into summaries for policymakers and politicians. And that opens the door to bias if the authors of the summaries and lead authors of individual chapters do not ensure that what is written provides a balanced view of the science.

Landsea, in resigning, is protesting a lack of such balance on the part on one lead author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the Observations chapter on which Landsea was working. Landsea notes in his letter to the scientific community that Trenberth has publicly advocated the view that substantial increases in hurricane activity will accompany global warming, despite the lack of a scientific basis for a hurricane-global warming connection.

Dr. Landsea, in fact, believes from his research that the current state of the science suggests little if any increase in predicted hurricane strength in the next 80 years. His view is consistent with the IPCC's Third Assessment Report of 1991.

Some might try to portray these events as simply a case of "sour grapes" on the part of Dr. Landsea for being a minority voice against a "consensus" viewpoint. But Landsea is not attacking "consensus." He notes that all scientists have the right to disagree with what is perceived to be a "consensus view" of a particular subject. He believes, though, that it is incumbent upon an IPCC lead author to foster balance in the chapter for which he or she is responsible. Dr. Landsea's resignation suggests that that balance is currently lacking, at least on the chapter on which he was working.

His resignation, though, is just the latest fallout from what appears to many to be a U.N.-guided effort at influencing public policy in a politics-driven exercise in environmental advocacy wrapped in science, while co-opting the credentials of the world's climate scientists to advance its agenda.

Prof. Richard Lindzen from MIT has often noted the political leanings of the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers, and therefore of its authors. And past experience has shown that the summaries tend to gloss over uncertainties concerning the future magnitude of global warming.

Of particular concern have been the oft-repeated declarations by the press to the effect that "2,500 of the world's climate scientists" (the approximate total number of participants in the IPCC process) "agree that global warming is a real threat to mankind."

Such statements are gross exaggerations as no such sweeping statements were ever signed off on by the participants, many of whom are not even scientists, but governmental representatives. Only a few of the reports' authors actually craft such pronouncements.

Through his resignation, Dr. Landsea has made it clear that he will not be part of a process that is currently broken. And the IPCC leadership would be well advised to not ignore the significance of his resignation, as it portends a shroud of bias that will envelope the Fourth Assessment Report if changes are not made.

Go to for (many) more articles which put the lie to the great hoax of Global Warming.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Junk Science on Global Warming

The website Junk Science has written an outstanding article dissecting some of the latest claims by the Hot Air-Heads. Seems our indefatigable enviro-nuts are now claiming satellite data shows stratospheric cooling, which they claim proves global warming (hew, boy!) Let me see if I get this; the atmosphere is getting cooler, so that means it`s getting warmer?

Junk Science has thoughtfully provided graphs and lots of numbers for us to chew on. Enjoy!

A Challenge to Roe v. Wade

This from the Center for Reclaiming America:
>> >C E N T E R F O R R E C L A I M I N G A M E R I C A> > From the Desk of Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director> >> > + + PRO-LIFE ALERT, 1/17/2005> > Supreme Court receives case to overturn Roe v. Wade> >> > (Forward to your pro-life friends)> >> > Mr. John,> >> > On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin a process> > that could overturn Roe v. Wade!> >> > Because you have stood with the Center for Reclaiming> > America on pro-life issues, I wanted to alert you to> > this news.> >> > On January 18, Norma McCorvey (the original "Jane Roe" of> > Roe v. Wade) will file a legal appeal with the Supreme Court> > to have Roe v. Wade reversed. I will be in Washington, D.C.,> > on that day to stand with our friends at The Justice> > Foundation in support of this case.> >> > The Justice Foundation has invested thousands upon thousands> > of hours in this case. They have gathered an enormous body> > of evidence to support Norma's case.> >> > Mr. John, this is a powerful opportunity to> > refute Roe v. Wade!> >> > Here is how you can help.> >> > First, notify your friends. Forward this message to everyone> > you know. We simply must get the word out.> >> > Second, please pray for Norma and the team at The Justice> > Foundation. Set aside time on January 18, specifically,> > to pray.> >> > Third, find out more about this case and how you can> > impact The Justice Foundation's efforts here:> >> >> >> > Thank you!> >> > Dr. Gary Cass> > Executive Director> > Center for Reclaiming America> >> > + +> > For CENTER coverage of this issue:> >> >> >

Unfortunately, I don`t think Roe will be overturned, given that the Justices (sic) have been unwilling to deal with this in the past, and Bush hasn`t been able to replace any of the recalcitrant members of the court. One never knows, however! I believe in the power of prayer, and perhaps the Holy Spirit will make it happen, despite Ruth Bader-Ginsberg or Stephen Bryer.

Abortion is THE great moral evil in this country, and the United States has many, many innocent lives to answer for.

Thanks, Dave-O!

Monday, January 17, 2005

The Silence of the Lambs

It`s monday, and I `m going to be brief. I`m going to be brief because 1. I am sorely depressed about the humiliation the St. Louis Lambs, er, Rams inflicted on themselves and 2. my head is still a bit thick from the beers I cried into watching the Rams inflict humiliation on themselves.

In all my years of watching professional football I have never seen a sorrier defensive effort. I really believe a high school team could have performed as well. I think a team full of Maureen Dowds could have actually done better (the offense would be too busy double checking their cups). The Rams defense should not even have bothered coming to the stadium. They did not make one decent hit all game. Bolger and the offense started off well, but fell apart when it became obvious that there was no way they could win; the Falcons scored every time they had the ball. What went wrong?

First off, the Rams should have pulled some of the starters early on. There is no sense in continuing on with a failing strategy, or a failing player. Second, since the Rams weren`t hitting, Michael Vic and the Falcon offense could play with easy confidence. They knew that they had nothing to fear from the Rams, and could run the ball right through the middle with ease. The rams lost their will to fight and gave up.

We can learn a lesson from the slaughter of the Lambs. You have to show up ready to fight. You have to hit your opponent hard, and often. You have to be flexible. And most importantly, you have to have the will to win. This country needs to learn these lessons. America has not really shown up to fight the War on Terror. America is unwilling to really hit our enemies hard, or often. America is not prepared for a long siege, and is fighting in an inflexible manner; forcing our troops to observe impossible rules of engagement which places them in peril. Finally, the country has not shown that it has the will to win. Make no mistake-our enemies are absolutely determined to win. Let`s pray we don`t end up like the Rams.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Sliding Into Sodom

An article in Newsmax today discusses a panel recommendation to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America to soften it`s stance against homosexual behavior by clergy and church leaders. Read it here: The Christian Churches are slowly sliding into Sodom, and no one should be surprised when these Churches wither on the vine.

There are issues which can be compromised, and there are issues which are set in stone; homosexuality is one of the issues set in stone for a Christian Church. The Bible refers to homosexuality as an abomination. In Romans, Paul writes ``Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen: For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.`` (ROM1:24-29). That recompence is grave indeed; it is final damnation! It is clear that homosexual behavior (as opposed to latent homosexuality) is roundly condemned and unacceptable.

The liberals in the churches argue that Christ`s sacrifice frees us from sin, and so we can forgive sins of the flesh. True, provided the sinner repents. This is where the libs put the cart before the horse; they want to excuse the sin, and allow the sinner to continue on merrily in his abominations. That is not what forgiveness is all about. (Please note that Paul was a New Testament writer; he is writing from a position of Grace and not Old Testament Law.) The Church is commanded to cut off the obstinate, unrepentent sinner, lest he corrupt the righteous. If the Evangelical Lutherans decide to excuse this they will have failed in their commission, and will reap the punishment set down in the Book of Revelation: ``Behold, I will cast her (the Church of Thy-a-ti`ra) into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts.``(REV2: 22-24).

It is easy to excuse Sin. That is the cowards way out. Love sometimes requires us to do some very hard things; any parent who loves their children understands this. Holding a sinner accountable for unrepentend sin is the loving way. Turning your head to clear sin is a moral evil which will be recompensed accordingly.

Neville Chamberlain has rightly been blamed for the rise of Hitler. He wanted peace at any price, and was unwilling to fight evil, prefering to excuse it. The Evangelical Lutherans had better take a page from history.

Friday, January 14, 2005

A Visit to Titan

The Huygens space probe has successfully landed on the surface of Saturn`s moon Titan. Titan is the only satellite in the solar system known to have a dense atmosphere (although Neptune`s moon Triton has a thin one) and can be considered an actual world. Titan is the second largest moon in the solar system (behind the Jovian Ganymede) and is larger than the planets Pluto and Mercury. It`s dense nitrogen/methane atmosphere is actually half again as thick as that of Earths (1.6 bar) and full of petrochemicals; it makes the smogs of L.A. seem like fresh mountain air (I wonder if the enviromentals will try to pass emissions laws on Titan). That is why Titan appears orange, rather than nitrogen blue. Because Titan is shrouded in smog clouds, no one knew what secrets the surface held. There could be oceans of ethane, ammonia blizzards, ice volcanoes, anything. We just didn`t know!

Now, for the first time, we actually have pictures of the Titanian landscape. This brings to 4 the number of worlds (plus one asteroid) where we have actual photographs of the surface. (The others are the Moon, Mars, and a very poor snapshop of the surface of Venus.) The mysterious Titan is beginning to shed her secrets.

The atmosphere of Titan is composed mostly of nitrogen, followed by methane, ethane, some ammonia, acetylene, ethylene and traces of other gases. Most of these gases are greenhouse gases, yet Titan is bitterly cold (289F below!) and may well rain ethane. It is believed that Titan has lakes and seas of liquid ethane.
In fact, the atmosphere of Titan resembles the early atmosphere of Earth, and scientists are eager to examine conditions there to get a better idea of what Earth was like at the beginning. Couple the ancient-Earthlike conditions with known organic material and probably adequate volcanism and lightning and you have conditions which would be favorable for life-at least so say the scientists. The only problem is the cold. Still, life could have formed around volcanic vents (much like life formed around volcanic vents at the bottom of the oceans on Earth.) This is one question we hope will be answered by Huygens; if, at least, conditions are indeed favorable chemically for life. (Personally, I doubt we will find life in the solar system or nearby stars. I believe there may be some very peculiar attributes necessary for life, and that we will be hard pressed to find it easily. I also believe that God created life through natural mechanisms, but that it is the manifestation of the Divine and that life will be limited by the will of the Almighty, but that is fodder for another essay.)

The mainstream media has treated this with a yawn. What a massive collection of dolts! Galileo, Newton, Schiapperelli, Tombaugh, etc. would have given their reproduction rights to have witnessed a moment like this! This is one of the great moments in history! Never again will generations get to witness the uncovering of the worlds of our solar system. Future generations will literally have to wait until we can visit other stars! This could be thousands of years! What majesty, what wonder we are privileged to witness! And the mainstream media is busy worrying about the pricetag of George Bush`s inauguration!

The history of life on Earth has been one of upward struggle. Life began in the deep. First plants, then animals crawled out of the primordial Oceans onto the land. They were fruitful, and multiplied, and filled the Earth. Man has been expanding for several million years from the plains of Africa to dominate the entire surface of the globe. We have men in orbit, and have had men on the Moon. We learn more and more. The solar system is the next logical step in Man`s sojourn here. We must move outward, expand, learn more, or we will wither away in despair at our imprisonment on this ancient rock. Our future lies above us, not grubbing in the Earth like the enviro-mentals and Earth First! crowd would have us believe. Gaia is not the answer; Gaia is but a false goddess. God has given us a Universe to conquer; it is time we got at it! Huygens has given us a good start.

To learn more, go to

Venus Is A Man`s World (Maureen Dowd Need Not Apply)

For some reason, this Maureen Dowd business (see Boo Hoo below) has been nagging (sic) at me; it seemed vaguely familiar. I puzzled over this (til my puzzler got sore) and then it came to me; Venus is a Man`s World!

Venus is a Man`s World was a science fiction story written by William Tenn in 1951 and read by your humble scribe as a boy. It chronicles the tale of an Earth dominated and populated by career-type women who lord it over their poodle-like men. Due to a shortage in decent men many women travel to Venus (at the time nobody knew of it`s hell-like qualities, although the story make even more sense in that light) and the other interplanetary colonies in search of real men. Seems they have all tired of the ``girliemen`` back home and want to try to boss around the butch colonials. As you can imagine, it doesn`t quite work out the way these gals plan and the women end up with what they really want-a husband who won`t put up with their B.S. (or M.B.A.)

William Tenn hit the nail on the head with this story, which was written before the full (de)flowering of the Feminist movement. He presciently foresaw where feminism would lead, and how the real victims of feminism would be the women trapped in it`s dogma. It really is an excellent story, and the Blue faerie would do well to read it. Perhaps she would gain an insight into why she is so unhappy.

Anyway, I`ve spent way too much time on this already!

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Boo Hoo from the Blue Fairie

Our favorite AAA battery charged intellect, Maureen Dowd, spends her latest column crying about how men don`t seem to want to get involved with firebrand feminists and testosterone injected female career types. I came across this and was going to comment on it at length, but Rush Limbaugh beat me to it on his show, so I shall endeavor to make just a few observations about the Blue Fairie and her hapless love life.

It seems our blue state gal is feeling a bit bluer than usual, and it`s all because she can`t find a fella who is willing to undergo surgery to remove his gonads. She rails against this fact, saying men are looking for mommies to take care of them. The Dowdy one just always seems to miss the point; nobody wants to marry their rival. Feminism has pushed the idea into these naive young ``ladies`` that they are to compete with men, that they are to scorn men, that they are to butt their way forward like goats to feed at the career trough. Any man who becomes involved romantically with a feminist like MoDo will either be engaged in a constant struggle of wills with his darling dearest, or will have to detach certain dangling body parts for his overlord. Neither option is particularly pleasant. Our poor sap will spend his life competing with his lover, and will be hated and reviled for it, or he will have to waive his tidy-whities in surrender and face the scorn and contempt which will be his. Feminists spend their days belittling and scorning men, then are surprised that men don`t care to keep company with them.

Here lies the terrible conundrum for our Blue friend; no woman would have any respect for a man who allows himself to be the doormat under her Blue State Shoes, while she will hate him if he refuses to knuckle under. Feminism has told these women to assert their ``rights`` and to be ``strong``. These are the exact opposite qualities necessary for a healthy and loving relationship. A giving spirit and a serving nature are key attributes in the success of any marriage or long-term commitment; and this applies to both woman and men. Real love, as opposed to lust or infatuation, means giving and serving, and forgiveness (feminists are notoriously short on forgiveness). There is no love without these.

These are concepts which go right over the heads of feminist career types. Maureen moans about men marrying their caregivers or service personnel. She complains that these men are looking for women to be, in essence, kind to them. She is completely without a clue; if she had a half a brain she would be looking for men to be kind to her. That she can`t find one suggests that the fault, dear Brutus, is not in her stars but in herself. Feminism has made her incapable of seeing the log in her own eye while she peers desperately into her red state brothers eyes for a speck.

Poor Maureen. She will never be happy. The more she looks for a red-blooded man, the bluer she becomes. The bluer she becomes, the angrier she becomes, which reinforces her jiffy half-baked worldview, which makes her more and more unhappy. She is trapped in an endless cycle of anger, despair, and loss. She, like so many other women, took a wrong turn down a cul-de-sac from which she cannot escape because she will be forced to reject the choices she made in her youth. Feminism has destroyed Maureen Dowd.

Skating on Thin Ice

Why haven`t we heard more about this in the mainstream media? Hillary manages to offend just about every red state American with this load of buffalo chip dip (not that she had thick, pre-global warming ice to skate on). We need to keep these little slip-ups of hers in the public consciousness for her presidential run; if everyone really knew what she was all about she wouldn`t stand a snowmans chance in the post-global warming world of gaining any traction.

Senator Hillary Clinton Blasts Bush Administration over Abortion
NEW YORK, January 12, 2005 ( – Abortion crusader and New York Senator Hillary Clinton condemned US President George W. Bush Tuesday, claiming his withdrawal of funding from organizations that commit or promote abortions is harming women. Speaking at an International Women's Health Coalition-sponsored dinner, Clinton claimed that "reproductive health care and family planning service is a basic right," and said this was based on decisions reached at the 1994 U.N. Population Conference in Cairo, as well as the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing, where Clinton gave a keynote address. She argued that the Bush administration has failed to uphold the so-called reproductive rights of women, by withdrawing funding from abortion-supporting organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).Clinton also maintained that the President’s focus on abstinence in sex education was hampering efforts to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, despite the UN’s own admission that condom failure rate for preventing HIV transmission may be as high as 20 percent. "ABC is a good strategy, but it has three parts to it and we need to remind the administration of that". The highly successful Ugandan ABC program first emphasizes abstinence, being faithful within marriage, and lastly, condom use, as measures to prevent the HIV transmission rate. Experts say the Ugandan success is comparable to a "highly effective vaccine." The last, least emphasized and least effective part of the Ugandan program, which involves condoms, is presumably the component that Clinton was referring to.The innocuous-sounding International Women's Health Coalition promotes abortion and contraception through funding programs in Africa, South and Central America. Their web site describes “. . . the world's most challenging health and rights issue” as “comprehensive sexuality education for adolescents and young adults.”IWHC also actively opposes the Bush administration policies that oppose the funding of abortion. “We have worked with other organizations and governments to defeat U.S. efforts at meetings in Asia and at the UN to remove ‘reproductive health’ and other key phrases from negotiating texts,” their web site states.

Does anyone doubt that this is the real Hillary?

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Charity and Ingratitude

David Hogberg, Senior Research Analyst at the Capital Research Center and contributor to the American Spectator posted a picture recently on his website Hog Haven of a man wearing an Osama Bin-Laden t-shirt while assisting with the humanitarian efforts in the tsunami zone. As I don`t know how to swipe the picture off his site I am forced to suggest you visit yourselves to see what I am talking about. It will repay you handsomely; Hogberg is an insightful writer (he called the elections on the nose) and his site is both entertaining and informative. Visit it at

Everyone else is talking about Rathergate, or the tsunami (so that`s where Paul Tsongas got it from!), or Abu Ghraib/Gitmo, so I decided to leave these subjects to those better informed (and those who give a rats #&$*% about them) while I would do what I do best-pontificate in a holier-than-thou manner while accelerating global warming with all the greenhouse gasses I can vent out my blow-hole! I directed both of you, my loyal fans, to the picture on Hog Haven because I want to talk about gratitude, ingratitude, and why the United States can`t seem to win the ``hearts and minds`` of our enemies. This seems to really puzzle people here in these United States. It shouldn`t; it is a matter of human nature.

First off, the Islamic world has never gotten over the Crusades. Islam was poised to finish off Christendom and take the whole world for Allah until Pope Urban II answered the plea from Alexius Comnenus at Constantinople, sending out the call for aid against the Turks at the Council of Clermont. The Crusades stopped the expansion of Islam and ushered in the era of European hegemony which has continued until the present day. The Moslems are stuck in the 12th Century, and dream of the day when they can even the score and restore their tarnished glory. How anyone in America or Europe could believe that 900 years of smoldering anger can be extinguished by a little kindness and generosity is beyond me. The hatred is just too deep to overcome easily.

Islam was and is a warrior cult. Most Moslems believe their faith is true because the great conquests made by Muhammad and his followers seemed to have been divinely ordained (I once pointed out to a young Moslem in a chat room that Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Ghengis Khan, etc. all had equal military success, but that we don`t worship these guys; my young friend had no response). To the Islamic world strenght and will are the measure of a man, not decency and kindness. The values we hold dear-charity, kindness, mercy, forebearance, forgiveness-are signs of weakness and are roundly despised by the faithful Moslem. The Moslem holds weakness in contempt. They will have far more respect for a Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler than for a Mother Theresa. That is why many Moslems cheered when the World Trade Center came crashing down. That is why they were angry with Saddam for being captured so easily-he showed himself weak, and shamed other professed Moslems with his weakness. (I know this because I work with several Moslems who told me this very thing; not that they wanted to see the United States injured but that they wanted to see the representative of their culture and faith put up a good fight to honor their beliefs.) The Moslem respects strength.

Which is part of what is wrong with our whole outlook on this matter. We keep trying to win the hearts and minds of our enemies through charitable acts and decent behavior, and we are continually shocked by the ingratitude and betrayal we are rewarded with. We can`t seem to get it that these people don`t respect our values; they respect strength. They will never love or respect us until we show them the full measure of our strength and resolve. They have to fear us first. It`s the only way we will be able to pacify the region and restructure. We can win their hearts and minds all we want AFTER we put the fear of God in them. (The Bible states that the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.)

Every time we rush in to help, every time we donate money, or send troops, or food, we rub their collective noses in our wealth and success. Human nature is covetous. The rest of the world, and especially our Islamic friends, do not see our actions as attempts at charity; they see them as arrogance and self-satisfied display. Why were we attacked in Mogidishu? Because what we saw as kindness they saw as Imperialist ambition dressed up as humanitarianism. The Moslems do not believe we mean what we say when we claim to be coming to help. Who would do such a thing? Nations are hypocritical, and the United States, being the richest, most powerful nation on Earth simply can`t be acting along altruistic lines. We have to have an ulterior motive. Steal the Oil! Seize bases! Take control of the Middle-East! That is what we really are up to! Then, when we pulled out of Somalia (like we did in Lebanon before) we appeared to them as horrible cowards. Osama Bin-Laden has stated plainly this very notion and it is at the core of his entire grand scheme; he believes that if he hurts us enough we will fold up. He sees us as weak and cowardly, beneath contempt. HE is strong! The Moslem will triumph through will and Allah! (Anyone remember THE TRIUMPH OF THE WILL?)

Which is why we need to drastically change our approach. I`m not advocating barbarism, but we need to be much firmer than we have been. This will not cost us, as so many policy wonks seem to think. The average Moslem will respect us if we show ourselves strong. They will despise us if we don`t. We have got to stop this stupidity of ``winning hearts and minds``. We can do that AFTER they respect us, which will only come when they fear us. We can`t win this war otherwise.

How Can I Get A Top CIA Job?

With people like this in charge of our security it`s a wonder Bin-Laden hasn`t brought the United States down yet.

World 'safer' with bin Laden on the looseFrom correspondents in WashingtonJanuary 10, 2005
The world may be better off if September 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden remains at large, according to the CIA's recently departed executive director.If the world's most wanted terrorist was captured or killed, a power struggle among his al-Qaeda subordinates might trigger a wave of terror attacks, said A.B. Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA's third in command.
"You can make the argument that we're better off with him at large," he said.
"If something happens to bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror."
Mr Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said bin Laden's role among Islamic militants was changing.
"He's turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind," he said. "Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about."
Mr Krongard, 68, said he viewed bin Laden "not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist".
"Let's say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square," he said. "So we go to bin Laden and he'll say, 'Well, here's some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy'."
Several US officials have privately admitted it may be better to keep bin Laden pinned down on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than make him a martyr or put him on trial.
But Mr Krongard is the most senior figure to acknowledge publicly that his capture might prove counter-productive.
The Sunday Times The Australian

Huh? We shouldn`t pursue our enemies because it might make them attack us? What kind of monstrous sophistry is this? It`s little wonder the President had so much trouble with the career CIA people. These guys should be working at the U.N. instead of guarding our national security.

How did this guy end up in such a responsible position? How can I get a job like that?

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Atmospheric Physics By Bruce

Bruce Thompson, host of Machias Privateer, has posted a fourth edition in his series Atmospheric Physics in which he chronicals the lunacy of the Global Warming Gang. I have reprinted it here with his permission.

Atmospheric Physics Part IV
The enormous amount of energy released in the earthquake and resultant tsunami off Sumatra dwarfs the efforts of Man. It truly raises the question, can Man really affect the environment in the face of the power of Nature? Are we capable of changing the climate through global warming? Let’s do some calculations.
One common unit of measure in these exalted realms is the kiloton equivalent of TNT (KT). This is given as 4,000,000,000,000 joules. Using the conversion factor of 1 British Thermal Unit (BTU) is equal to 1,055 joules, we come to the result that 1 KT = 3,790,000,000 BTUs.
Now let us consider a volume of air one mile on a side (i.e. 1 cubic mile). Using this calculator to figure the pressure at one mile (5280 feet) with a sea level pressure of 14.7 psi and a temperaure of 27 degrees C, we arrive at a pressure of 12.24 psi @ 5280 feet. So a column of air one mile high and one square inch in area horizontally weights 14.7 – 12.24 = 2.46 pounds. Multiplying by 144 square inches per square foot, then by 5280 times 5280 (feet/mile) we arrive at a total mass of 9,875,644,416 pounds for one cubic mile of air starting at sea level up.
The heat required to raise the temperature of that mass just one degree F, is equal to the mass times the specific heat (.24 BTU/pound – degree F). Doing the math we find that it takes about 2,370,000,000 BTUs to raise the temperature a single degree. That is 0.625 KT energy equivalent. I assume you all have seen the air temperature rise 20 degrees from morning to mid-afternoon. That would work out to be 12.5 KT or an amount equal to the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. Chicago has an area of 89 square miles. So heating just the lower mile of the atmosphere takes over 1 Megaton (MT) equivalent of energy. The Sun drops The Bomb on Chicago every summer day! Man is quite puny in the face of Nature, as was proven yesterday.

Bruce is as sharp as they come, and his blog is very inciteful and informative; he should be a daily read! To visit his site go here: Check out the other Atmospheric Physics post while you`re there. They go back in the archives to July. Well worth the time!

Michael Novak Says It All

I have been a bit under the weather this week and so my posting has been very light. I`ll be back to aggravating both of you, my fans, soon enough!

I came upon this piece by Michael Novak in NRO ONLINE and thought I`d post it. I had been thinking of writing something similar to this, but couldn`t say it any better than Novak.

E-mail AuthorAuthor ArchiveSend to a FriendPrint Version
January 05, 2005, 7:12 a.m.Blaming God First Why do children have to die?
What are we to say about a human condition in which "Nature red in tooth and claw" rears up on its massive hindquarters, and hurls a 30-foot wall of water against the lowlands of eleven of the poorest and most populous nations on earth, including some playgrounds of the rich of Europe and America, and crushes, chokes, and twists away the lives of going past 150,000 human beings?

"Nature" is not the way the Greens picture it. Nature batters human beings. Nature has annihilated tens of thousands of other species, why not the human species?
Most of the public voices in our enlightened age have gotten away with the indefensible drivel of liberal sentimentalism, chattering as if all intelligent people are atheists, whose god is a benevolent, nurturing, sheltering Mother Nature. Recently, I was debating on radio a Dutch member of the European parliament, who described herself on air as "an atheist who has values." She then described her values as "caring about this Earth and protecting it, and passing it on to my children."
I respect and admire her choice. At that moment, though, she was probably not thinking about this murderous tsunami and other natural furies, such as the raging seas that would overpower Holland if the extensive, huge dikes did not prevent it. Nor about diseases that for millennia kept the primitive human population on earth pitifully low.
How cruel a habitat is Earth!
The evils that afflict humankind upon this Earth are not a scandal solely for those who believe in a Creator. They are also a scandal for those who believe that Nature cares for human beings.
Most of the atheists among my friends at Harvard years ago (and elsewhere in academic departments of philosophy) were actually rationalists, who believed that in the end, at bottom, reason and law governed all things. They simply saw no reason for calling that abiding rationality in things a gift from God, whom they could not see. It was simply there, unexplained.
A few of them, however, were nihilists. They believed that "at bottom" there was just one unexplained bottom after another unexplained bottom "all the way down." Our existence is only a joke, a fluke, an irrational flick of pure, unadulterated chance. They believed that their superior intellects allowed them to cut through all the fraud, pretense, and superstition in which others took comfort. They thought that even the "rationalist" atheists were not smart enough to detect the absurdity of their own position. An "unexplained" rationality is a non-rational rationality. The rationalists were actually nihilists who couldn't yet admit it.
To this accusation, the atheists who were rationalists replied that they were merely being pragmatic, walking as far as the light of rationality took them, and saw no need to throw themselves on the ground in adolescent "existential anguish." They thought the nihilists went way too far in romantic self-dramatization, and their admonition to them was: "Grow up."
Modernism, however, which in my university years connoted Nietzsche, nihilism, contempt for anything bourgois or orthodox, and all the flowers of evil, has become the common language of the arts and "culture." Although now under the banner of "post-modernism," the invisible gas of nihilism seems to have seeped into every quarter. More even than the universities, the media have become the carriers of nihilism, even when nihilism is far from the intentions of the carrier.
Well, then, how does nihilism explain the ease with which Nature threw 150,000 living, unsuspecting, terrified human victims in Asia to their anonymous deaths?
The entire "nobility" of nihilism depends on the superiority of intellect that allows the nihilist to see himself as smarter than those who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God. In other words, the Jewish and Christian God. The whole emotional-moral point of nihilism is to hold itself superior to Judaism and Christianity. If everything else is absurd, religion must be too. That is why, faced with a horrendous natural disaster, in which thousands of innocent human beings die irrationally, for no reason, the rationalist atheists and the nihilists alike blame God first. It is important for them to do that.
They do not blame just any God. The God of the Maya and many other religions of nature has always been known to be cruel, as Nature itself is cruel, and heedless of human emotion, aspiration, and hope. Rather, it is only the God of Judaism (learned of and spread round the world by Christians) that they blame. No, perhaps more, they blame the God of Christianity, for in Christ the world has been given an even more vivid image of divine concern for the poor, the lowly, and the needy, and of divine gentleness, friendship and love. They are blaming the God of the Sermon on the Mount. That is the God that there is true joy in blaming.
THE PROBLEM OF EVILTruly, the continuing presence of evil in the world — perhaps most acutely when this evil is manifested in unconscious Nature, out of its own laws and processes — is a great scandal to loving, believing Christians. It is truly hard for them to understand how a kind and gracious Providence can allow such terrible things to happen to human beings. To so many scores of thousands of human beings. On such a vast scale.
In some ways, it is easier to understand how individual human beings can do horribly evil deeds. At least one can point to their free will. Struggling to find plausible reasons, one recalls one's own irrationalities and sins, murders one has read of in the local papers, etc.
It is true that some evils are so unspeakable and unimaginable that they defy all attempted comparisons to anything in anyone's previous experience — the Holocaust, for example. How can a good God possibly allow that horror to happen to (in a twofold sense) his own people? But even these we attribute to human agency, however monstrous. Whereas the dead that have suffered from a naked act of Nature seem somehow to have been stricken by God's own unmediated action.
What can biblically informed believers reply to those who, contemplating the massive destruction and death in today's Asia, blame their God (a God in Whom those who do the blaming do not believe)?
Confronted with this demand — confronted with it, actually, quite often in my lifetime — I think first of this: Since those who ask it do not believe in God, the question is not what it seems to be. The real point of the question is to get me to groan inwardly by agreeing that the one who thinks he is my superior is correct, after all. The real point is to get me to deny the reality of God.
The point is even a little more complex. My taunter does not want me to deny the reality of God on the ground that the assertion of that reality is absurd. Actually, my taunter holds that everything, at bottom, is absurd. My taunter really wants to show me that I am like him; and that I too am driven to join him in recognizing the absurd at the bottom of all things. He wants to prove that he has been smarter all along, and to watch me have to surrender as he has surrendered. He has given up his faith in reason all the way down, and he wants me to do the same.
My second thought is as follows. The Bible warns us often of the confrontation with the absurd that each of us who believes in the goodness of the Lord must face, and more than once in our lives. We see all the time in the Bible that the just are made to suffer, while the unjust live and laugh in plenty, heaping ridicule on the just. We read of the horrid, unfathomable afflictions that God piles up on his faithful servant, Job. Job refuses to say that in doing these things to him God is acting justly or kindly; Job knows his own pain, and he refuses to lie. He refuses to "prettify" God, or to cut God down to human standards. He knows that God is no sentimental liberal.
And if Job is the type of "the suffering servant," whose sufferings cannot be explained by his own deeds, and whose sufferings are on the face of it horribly and inexcusably unjust, so also is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the sinless One, who in forewarning his apostles of the sufferings he will endure on the cross alludes to Job more than once.
WHO'S JUDGING WHOM?Stand before the cross. Look at the body of this suffering servant of God. Look, perhaps, with eyes opened by Mel Gibson's all but unendurable The Passion. If this is what God did to His own Son — His own being, with Whom He is one — then what hope is there that we will be treated "nicely"? The God who does this is not "the God of niceness." His scale of grandeur is far different from ours. One has no sense of Him whatever if one does not feel inner trembling and vast distance.
He is not a God made in our image. We are made as (very poor) images of Him — images chiefly in the sense that we experience insight and judgment, decision and love, and that we too have responsibilities.
This is the God who made the vastness of the Alps and the Rockies and the Andes; who knows the silence of jungles no human has yet penetrated; who made all the galaxies beyond our ken; who gave to Mozart and Beethoven and Shakespeare and Milton and Dante and legions of others great talents; who infused life into the eyes of every newborn, and love into the hearts of all lovers; and imagined, created, and expressed love for all the things that He made. He made all the powers of storms, and all the immense force of earthquakes, and the roiling and tumultuous churning of the oceans. He imagined all the beautiful melodies we have ever heard, and more that we have not.
God is God.
God is our Judge.
We are not His judge.
The question is not, "Does God measure up to our (liberal, compassionate, self-deceived) standards?" The question is, "Will we learn — in silence and in awe at the far-beyond-human power of nature — how great, on a far different scale from ours, is God's love?"
It would be the greatest and most obscene of illusions for a man, any man, to imagine that he has greater love for a child mangled in the oily, dark waters of the recent tsunami than the Creator of that child has. It would be like Ivan Karamazov being unable to forgive God so long as one single child anywhere went to bed at night crying in loneliness and in pain. Who is Karamazov to think that his own love for that child — a purely abstract, speculative, hard-case, counterexample love — is greater than that of the child's Creator?
The tapestry on which God weaves human existence is not the tapestry within the framework of time that we experience. As we do not comprehend the power of nature (especially nowadays, when we live so far removed from it, so protected from it), even more we do not begin to comprehend the love and goodness of God.
The truth is, the sight and smell of awful human death is sometimes more than we can take. Perhaps we should feel confidence in the power of God's love, but we do not see it. All we feel is the night. Our darkness is as keen as that of the unbeliever and the nihilist.
Yet in that darkness, we the believers alone (not the unbeliever or the nihilist) feel betrayed by One whom we love. We alone feel anguish because we cannot understand.
But it is not as if we had not often before bumped into the limits of our understanding, and recognized nonetheless that there are undeniable glimmerings of powers and presences we know not of. And, like Job, we refuse to deny the power of the goodness and light which we do see, their power to go out into the night in which we cannot now see.
It does seem that the Creator is not always kind, not even just, within the bounded space that we experience. It does seem that the Creator acts with undeniable cruelty. In our time, we have seen unimaginable suffering. Like Job, we cannot deny what we see.
Neither can we deny the Light, which is what makes the absurd seem absurd. Only in contrast to Light is the absurd absurd. Otherwise it is only a brute matter of fact.
No less than the unbeliever or the nihilist does the devout Jew or Christian inhabit the night. But only the believers continue in the silence to utter the unseeing yes of our love. The yes that Ivan Karamazov cannot say in the night Alyosha does say.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by