Wednesday, April 26, 2006
There they go again, the death penalty is cruel and ...
I was out on the road listening to the news between hearing Rush when I heard that there were some judges who were talking about the lethal injection formula being used in some states to execute condemned prisoners, was one that would not even be used on animals to put them to sleep because it "could" cause severe pain. Why is it more important to value the "rights" of the condemned than the rights of the victims? I sometimes get the feeling that the ones who value the perpetrators believe the victims deserve whatever happened to them. Capital punishment is the end of the line for the convicted. The methods used by the various states have been getting closer and closer to terminating the guilty by "kindness". Since most of the guilty chose to ignore "kindness" in their methods of killing others, I find a lot of anger inside against the guilty and the numbskulls that have completely forgotten the reasons for the guilty being convicted. I would think that some other countries methods might come to mind for offenses, such as beheading, which I am positive causes severe pain. Do I want to see that here, NO! What I think needs to happen is for those who side with the guilty come to a realization that perhaps the punishment should fit the crime.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Scientists cool outlook on global warming
As reported here, "Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted. ". That first sentence should have said "most", not "some", but I digress.
Duke University scientists of the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences have concluded that the dire predictions of most of the scientific community regarding so-called global warming are just a tad over-blown, citing a study they conducted recently, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings.
What their study found out is that the earth's temperatures fluctuate over time, with temperatures both rising and falling, and that the predicted steep increase of 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in so-called green house gases isn't very likely. As a matter of fact, "The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago." [Emphasis mine]
Let me repeat that folks. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only FIVE PERCENT! That means that there is a NINETY FIVE PERCENT chance that temperatures won't rise by even 11 degrees, let alone 16 degrees. Think about that for a minute. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only 5 percent. "Chances" does not equate to probability. "Chances" means that it might happen, not that it will happen. And the chances of it happening are only 5 percent!
Here's a few other nuggets of note from the article:
"In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming." Ah, yes - blame America for everything wrong in the world. Why, it's even our fault that China's air pollution is so bad that they have recently been forced to consider enacting pollution control laws modeled on those in force in the US. Imagine that.
"This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures." Well, darn. There go my plans for a garden, I guess. Actually, I'd be interested to know how he came up with that prediction. What are his sources? Did he consult the "magic eight ball", by any chance?
"On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases." This one made me laugh out loud. So ... I take it we all better become vegetarians then? I wonder if their "research" was funded by the folks who make the product "Beano"? You know, the pill you take to keep you from getting gas from eating beans? How ludicrous. (Note - I don't think their "research" was funded by the fine folks who make "Beano". I was just trying to make a point, ok?)
"Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming ..." Um, guys? I think future "societal disruptions" will be caused more from terrorists blowing people up (and that would include eco-terrorists like ELF and ALF)!
"[T]he Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees." So, northern forests are going to make the earth warmer, huh? How about how much warmer it is (supposedly) in places like South America along the Amazon, and in Africa, where tress are being cut down willy-nilly, hmmm? Which is it, folks? You can't have it both ways. Nope, sorry, can't happen.
"In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."" Yes, we're all doomed - DOOMED! - I tell you! Actually, I think the Harvard scientists are DOOMED to have some "shocks and surprises" of their own after reading the data from this Duke University study.
"The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."" Any Hollywood movie featuring Al "Chicken Little" Gore telling more lies (such as the one where he said, "I invented the Internet!") - and in dramatic fashion no less! - will very likely be terrifying! But, I think the one's who will be even more terrified will be the financiers of this "documentary", when they see their investment go down the tubes when people don't flock to see it. Hmmmm, I wonder if it's going to be released straight to DVD?
Okay, the climate is changing, that much is obvious to anyone who has any functional gray matter between the ears, I'll admit. But is it due to an increase in so-called greenhouse gases, or is it just the natural cycle of the earth heating and cooling, as it has done in the past, moving into the heating stage? The Director of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Gabriele Hegerl, "... discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced ...", and I tend to believe someone like her, over extremists like Al "Chicken Little" Gore.
Anyone with any amount of functional gray matter between the ears will, too.
Hat tip: mightyrighty
Update: Mark Steyn has something to say on this subject as well.
Duke University scientists of the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences have concluded that the dire predictions of most of the scientific community regarding so-called global warming are just a tad over-blown, citing a study they conducted recently, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings.
What their study found out is that the earth's temperatures fluctuate over time, with temperatures both rising and falling, and that the predicted steep increase of 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in so-called green house gases isn't very likely. As a matter of fact, "The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago." [Emphasis mine]
Let me repeat that folks. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only FIVE PERCENT! That means that there is a NINETY FIVE PERCENT chance that temperatures won't rise by even 11 degrees, let alone 16 degrees. Think about that for a minute. The chances of temperatures rising by even 11 degrees is only 5 percent. "Chances" does not equate to probability. "Chances" means that it might happen, not that it will happen. And the chances of it happening are only 5 percent!
Here's a few other nuggets of note from the article:
"In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming." Ah, yes - blame America for everything wrong in the world. Why, it's even our fault that China's air pollution is so bad that they have recently been forced to consider enacting pollution control laws modeled on those in force in the US. Imagine that.
"This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures." Well, darn. There go my plans for a garden, I guess. Actually, I'd be interested to know how he came up with that prediction. What are his sources? Did he consult the "magic eight ball", by any chance?
"On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases." This one made me laugh out loud. So ... I take it we all better become vegetarians then? I wonder if their "research" was funded by the folks who make the product "Beano"? You know, the pill you take to keep you from getting gas from eating beans? How ludicrous. (Note - I don't think their "research" was funded by the fine folks who make "Beano". I was just trying to make a point, ok?)
"Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming ..." Um, guys? I think future "societal disruptions" will be caused more from terrorists blowing people up (and that would include eco-terrorists like ELF and ALF)!
"[T]he Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees." So, northern forests are going to make the earth warmer, huh? How about how much warmer it is (supposedly) in places like South America along the Amazon, and in Africa, where tress are being cut down willy-nilly, hmmm? Which is it, folks? You can't have it both ways. Nope, sorry, can't happen.
"In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."" Yes, we're all doomed - DOOMED! - I tell you! Actually, I think the Harvard scientists are DOOMED to have some "shocks and surprises" of their own after reading the data from this Duke University study.
"The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."" Any Hollywood movie featuring Al "Chicken Little" Gore telling more lies (such as the one where he said, "I invented the Internet!") - and in dramatic fashion no less! - will very likely be terrifying! But, I think the one's who will be even more terrified will be the financiers of this "documentary", when they see their investment go down the tubes when people don't flock to see it. Hmmmm, I wonder if it's going to be released straight to DVD?
Okay, the climate is changing, that much is obvious to anyone who has any functional gray matter between the ears, I'll admit. But is it due to an increase in so-called greenhouse gases, or is it just the natural cycle of the earth heating and cooling, as it has done in the past, moving into the heating stage? The Director of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Gabriele Hegerl, "... discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced ...", and I tend to believe someone like her, over extremists like Al "Chicken Little" Gore.
Anyone with any amount of functional gray matter between the ears will, too.
Hat tip: mightyrighty
Update: Mark Steyn has something to say on this subject as well.
Michelle Malkin targeted by Leftist thugs
Recently, after "student activists" at UCSC had forced military recruiters to leave the bi-annual job fair at UCSC, fellow blogger Michelle Malkin did a few posts about this, and as a result of posting some public contact information about the "student activists" in one of her posts - information that they had made public, by the way - some cowardly leftist thugs then posted to the web personal information about Michelle, including her home address (with satellite photos!) and telephone number, in an apparent attempt to incite someone to harass her, at the very least, or even to possibly cause her harm.
This is outrageously reprehensible! The Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to voice their opinion, as well as guaranteeing you the right to disagree with that opinion. However, just because you happen to disagree with someone's opinion does not give you the right to try to shut them up through intimidation, or outright threats to their personal safety.
Several other fellow bloggers have come to Michelle's side in this, and Michelle also has something to say, too, with links to her posts that caused such a cowardly reaction. You can see what others have been saying by going here, here (pretty funny), here, and here (caution - very strong language!).
A personal note to Michelle - I salute your bravery in the face of these cowardly attempts to try to intimidate you into silence. Know that there is a whole army of folks out here that are ready, able, and willing to come to your defense.
And last but not least, a personal note to the "anonymous" cowards out there who posted all that private personal information about Michelle to the web - nothing on the web is ever truly, completely "anonymous". Someone else with the expertise and time will ferret you out, and make YOUR private personal information public, and I know without a doubt that you won't like that.
This is outrageously reprehensible! The Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to voice their opinion, as well as guaranteeing you the right to disagree with that opinion. However, just because you happen to disagree with someone's opinion does not give you the right to try to shut them up through intimidation, or outright threats to their personal safety.
Several other fellow bloggers have come to Michelle's side in this, and Michelle also has something to say, too, with links to her posts that caused such a cowardly reaction. You can see what others have been saying by going here, here (pretty funny), here, and here (caution - very strong language!).
A personal note to Michelle - I salute your bravery in the face of these cowardly attempts to try to intimidate you into silence. Know that there is a whole army of folks out here that are ready, able, and willing to come to your defense.
And last but not least, a personal note to the "anonymous" cowards out there who posted all that private personal information about Michelle to the web - nothing on the web is ever truly, completely "anonymous". Someone else with the expertise and time will ferret you out, and make YOUR private personal information public, and I know without a doubt that you won't like that.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Sims wants to boost county sales tax
As reported here, King County executive Ron "King" Sims wants to boost the county sales tax by one tenth of one percent to pay for improvements in bus transportation, raising the sales tax on goods and services from 8.8% to 8.9% in King County.
Improved bus service is all well and good, but I have some problems with this idea.
The first problem I have with this is, of course, raising a current tax above its' current level to pay for something, when absolutely no effort has been expended in making the system that this additional source of funds is for, more efficient in its' operation. But then again, we are talking about a government agency here, so the "natural thing to do" is to look for more money coming in, rather than looking for better ways to spend what they already receive.
The other problem I have is that a higher sales tax on goods and services harms those who can least afford to pay this, and this in turn, is bad for our economy. Those who are already lining up to say this is a "good idea" say that a one tenth of one percent increase in the sales tax would only have a "marginal impact" on the average household, but I beg to differ with that premise. In this day and age, with personal debt escalating out of control, rising energy and food costs, and astronomical housing costs, the "average household" is already cash strapped, and any increase in any tax - no matter how small - will have a direct, and definite impact on the budget of the "average household" (if they actually have a budget, that is). Much as I hate to admit this, this increase in the county sales tax rate will probably sail through the county council, however ill advised it may be, much to the detriment of the "average household".
Efficient bus service is not something high on the "to do" list of Ron Sims, while increasing taxes apparently is.
Improved bus service is all well and good, but I have some problems with this idea.
The first problem I have with this is, of course, raising a current tax above its' current level to pay for something, when absolutely no effort has been expended in making the system that this additional source of funds is for, more efficient in its' operation. But then again, we are talking about a government agency here, so the "natural thing to do" is to look for more money coming in, rather than looking for better ways to spend what they already receive.
The other problem I have is that a higher sales tax on goods and services harms those who can least afford to pay this, and this in turn, is bad for our economy. Those who are already lining up to say this is a "good idea" say that a one tenth of one percent increase in the sales tax would only have a "marginal impact" on the average household, but I beg to differ with that premise. In this day and age, with personal debt escalating out of control, rising energy and food costs, and astronomical housing costs, the "average household" is already cash strapped, and any increase in any tax - no matter how small - will have a direct, and definite impact on the budget of the "average household" (if they actually have a budget, that is). Much as I hate to admit this, this increase in the county sales tax rate will probably sail through the county council, however ill advised it may be, much to the detriment of the "average household".
Efficient bus service is not something high on the "to do" list of Ron Sims, while increasing taxes apparently is.
Iran: A clear and present danger
The editorial writer at the OpinionJournal states that "Iran is threat that can't be outsourced any longer."
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
Democrats: No Single Message Sums Us Up
In an AP article, several Dems were asked to sum up their party's message, but found it difficult to do so. Probably because they have no "message".
"Ask Democratic leaders to identify their party's election-year message and you get everything but consensus." It's because they have no "message".
"Ahead in polls, Democrats are divided over whether they already have _ or even need _ a national theme that tells voters exactly where the party stands." Polls heavily slanted to asking the opinions of Dems, of course.
"One message? Hmmm. I don't know. Let me think about it," Alvaro Cifuentes said after a long pause. Several minutes later, the head of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus said, "You can't try to simplify your politics with a slogan. You can't." You could if you tried hard enough.
"It's not that we don't stand for anything, it's that sometimes we stand for everything," said Barry Rubin, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party. Rubin said the stand-for-everything approach invites GOP criticism." Standing for "everything"? And you people are still wondering why you are no longer the party in power?
"Hoping to make their election-year message clear to voters, Democrats leaders have launched a series of six policy statements. "Honest Leadership & Open Government" and "Real Security" came first, soon to be followed by positions on energy, the economy, health care and retirement." "Honest Leadership & Open Government"? Go here to see how "honest" and "open" the Dems are, and here to see what their "Real Security" "plan" is.
"Democrats say their message is not as muddled as it sometimes sounds." Oh, really? Their message seems as clear as mud to me!
"We may talk about it in different ways but there's still the same goal," DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said." The only goal I have seen of the Dems is to discredit President Bush in any way possible - a "goal" they have had since 2000 - including the use of lies and innuendo, and the usual demagoguery.
"We offer an alternative to the corruption that has been blatant in Washington. We offer an alternative to tax cuts for the rich," said Melissa Schroeder, a DNC member from Wisconsin." Conveniently ignoring their own problems.
"Linda Chavez-Thompson, the AFL-CIO's executive vice president, said one Democratic message will come together. "We're formulating it now, and that is, we are going to change things in Washington and the Democratic Party has the answer," she said." And that will be when, exactly?
"Janice Brunson, a DNC member from Arizona, said the Democratic Party has a clear message for 2006, but she struggled to explain it. "The problem is we don't have a two- or three-word slogan that pops out," she said." The reason Ms. Brunson struggled to explain it is that the Dems simply do not have a "clear message" other than "Bush is bad/America is bad." You won't get as many people to vote for you as you want by staying on that message.
"In recent years, the Democratic Party has struggled to explain what it stands for in clear, succinct language that is repeated often enough to resonate with voters. Strategists in both parties agree that Republicans are better at political "branding."" The reasons for that, of course, as this article clearly points out, is that the Dems don't have a clue what the American people really want, while the Reps have a better grasp on that (for the most part, anyway).
"In his 2004 re-election campaign, President Bush's message was strong and principled leadership.", while Sen. Kerry's message was ... was ... gee, I can't remember what Sen. Kerry's message was exactly ... oh, wait! I remember now! It was, "I have a plan!". Yeah, that's it! A "plan"! What the "plan" was, however, was never - not one time - ever revealed to the American voters. And Sen. Kerry still wonders why President Bush was re-elected? (Oh, and Sen. Kerry is "seriously" thinking about running again in 2008. Got a "plan" that you're willing to share with the rest of us yet, pal? If not, I hope you do get nominated again, and keep spouting off about some vague "plan" - without letting us in on it, again - as that will virtually gaurantee that you'll lose - again.)
"A decade earlier, the GOP's Contract with America, a set of unifying GOP policy initiatives, was credited with helping Republicans win congressional seats _ although some Democrats say the sour mood of the country had more to do with the power change." Ten years ago, the Reps articulated what was on the minds of the American voters, and pushed through reforms that we wanted. The "sour mood" of the country was caused by the party that was in power at the time, which had stopped listening to the people who had elected them to do the people's business. And the party in power at that time was? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll even give you a hint - the minority party at the time was not the Dems.
"Democrats hold a wide lead over Republicans when voters are asked which party they want to control Congress." Of course, it helps your "poll" come up with what you want it to by having the majority of respondents be Dems.
"Some Democrats said emphasizing GOP woes will be enough to win on Election Day." Dream on. Emphasizing "GOP woes", without articulating "a plan" is what got you to minority status in the first place. Go ahead - keep it up. Make my day.
"If your opponent is self-destructing, let them do it," said Mike Edmondson, executive director of the Indiana Democratic Party." This sounds like a case of the kettle calling the pot black. The Dems have been self-destructing for years now, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.
"Others said the party must do more." Gee, you think?
"Judy Olson Duhamel, chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party: "We are obligated to work hard and really work on message and information," she said. If Democrats don't do so, she said, "we don't deserve to win."" Yes, Judy, you are obligated to work hard, but during all of your hard work, at least try to put the truth in your message, ok? To do anything less than speak the truth, and let the American voter decide ... well, you won't deserve to win this year, either.
November is only six and half months away, and the Dems have not been able to have a coherent message in years - at least not one that is the truth - and time is running out on them.
"Ask Democratic leaders to identify their party's election-year message and you get everything but consensus." It's because they have no "message".
"Ahead in polls, Democrats are divided over whether they already have _ or even need _ a national theme that tells voters exactly where the party stands." Polls heavily slanted to asking the opinions of Dems, of course.
"One message? Hmmm. I don't know. Let me think about it," Alvaro Cifuentes said after a long pause. Several minutes later, the head of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus said, "You can't try to simplify your politics with a slogan. You can't." You could if you tried hard enough.
"It's not that we don't stand for anything, it's that sometimes we stand for everything," said Barry Rubin, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party. Rubin said the stand-for-everything approach invites GOP criticism." Standing for "everything"? And you people are still wondering why you are no longer the party in power?
"Hoping to make their election-year message clear to voters, Democrats leaders have launched a series of six policy statements. "Honest Leadership & Open Government" and "Real Security" came first, soon to be followed by positions on energy, the economy, health care and retirement." "Honest Leadership & Open Government"? Go here to see how "honest" and "open" the Dems are, and here to see what their "Real Security" "plan" is.
"Democrats say their message is not as muddled as it sometimes sounds." Oh, really? Their message seems as clear as mud to me!
"We may talk about it in different ways but there's still the same goal," DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said." The only goal I have seen of the Dems is to discredit President Bush in any way possible - a "goal" they have had since 2000 - including the use of lies and innuendo, and the usual demagoguery.
"We offer an alternative to the corruption that has been blatant in Washington. We offer an alternative to tax cuts for the rich," said Melissa Schroeder, a DNC member from Wisconsin." Conveniently ignoring their own problems.
"Linda Chavez-Thompson, the AFL-CIO's executive vice president, said one Democratic message will come together. "We're formulating it now, and that is, we are going to change things in Washington and the Democratic Party has the answer," she said." And that will be when, exactly?
"Janice Brunson, a DNC member from Arizona, said the Democratic Party has a clear message for 2006, but she struggled to explain it. "The problem is we don't have a two- or three-word slogan that pops out," she said." The reason Ms. Brunson struggled to explain it is that the Dems simply do not have a "clear message" other than "Bush is bad/America is bad." You won't get as many people to vote for you as you want by staying on that message.
"In recent years, the Democratic Party has struggled to explain what it stands for in clear, succinct language that is repeated often enough to resonate with voters. Strategists in both parties agree that Republicans are better at political "branding."" The reasons for that, of course, as this article clearly points out, is that the Dems don't have a clue what the American people really want, while the Reps have a better grasp on that (for the most part, anyway).
"In his 2004 re-election campaign, President Bush's message was strong and principled leadership.", while Sen. Kerry's message was ... was ... gee, I can't remember what Sen. Kerry's message was exactly ... oh, wait! I remember now! It was, "I have a plan!". Yeah, that's it! A "plan"! What the "plan" was, however, was never - not one time - ever revealed to the American voters. And Sen. Kerry still wonders why President Bush was re-elected? (Oh, and Sen. Kerry is "seriously" thinking about running again in 2008. Got a "plan" that you're willing to share with the rest of us yet, pal? If not, I hope you do get nominated again, and keep spouting off about some vague "plan" - without letting us in on it, again - as that will virtually gaurantee that you'll lose - again.)
"A decade earlier, the GOP's Contract with America, a set of unifying GOP policy initiatives, was credited with helping Republicans win congressional seats _ although some Democrats say the sour mood of the country had more to do with the power change." Ten years ago, the Reps articulated what was on the minds of the American voters, and pushed through reforms that we wanted. The "sour mood" of the country was caused by the party that was in power at the time, which had stopped listening to the people who had elected them to do the people's business. And the party in power at that time was? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll even give you a hint - the minority party at the time was not the Dems.
"Democrats hold a wide lead over Republicans when voters are asked which party they want to control Congress." Of course, it helps your "poll" come up with what you want it to by having the majority of respondents be Dems.
"Some Democrats said emphasizing GOP woes will be enough to win on Election Day." Dream on. Emphasizing "GOP woes", without articulating "a plan" is what got you to minority status in the first place. Go ahead - keep it up. Make my day.
"If your opponent is self-destructing, let them do it," said Mike Edmondson, executive director of the Indiana Democratic Party." This sounds like a case of the kettle calling the pot black. The Dems have been self-destructing for years now, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.
"Others said the party must do more." Gee, you think?
"Judy Olson Duhamel, chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party: "We are obligated to work hard and really work on message and information," she said. If Democrats don't do so, she said, "we don't deserve to win."" Yes, Judy, you are obligated to work hard, but during all of your hard work, at least try to put the truth in your message, ok? To do anything less than speak the truth, and let the American voter decide ... well, you won't deserve to win this year, either.
November is only six and half months away, and the Dems have not been able to have a coherent message in years - at least not one that is the truth - and time is running out on them.
Mail-only balloting closer in King County
As reported here, King County may soon join most of the other counties in Washington State, and have all mail-in voting by 2007.
I have some reservations about this:
All mail-in voting makes voter fraud easier (giving Dems more of an advantage);
I don't see any provisions where voter registration will be tightened up to prevent the same problems as occurred in 2004 from happening again (giving Dems more of an advantage);
King County election staffers will be the people in charge of implementing the change over, the very same people who caused most of the problems in 2004 (giving Dems more of an advantage).
I would be more comfortable with this if all eligible voters were required to re-register, providing valid residential addresses, and proof of eligibility to vote, eliminating post office box, self-storage facilities, and other such "residences", as well as felons and dead people from the voter registration rolls, which I don't see being required, Secretary of State Sam Reed's, and King County Executive Ron Sim's assurances that "all will be well" notwithstanding.
I have some reservations about this:
All mail-in voting makes voter fraud easier (giving Dems more of an advantage);
I don't see any provisions where voter registration will be tightened up to prevent the same problems as occurred in 2004 from happening again (giving Dems more of an advantage);
King County election staffers will be the people in charge of implementing the change over, the very same people who caused most of the problems in 2004 (giving Dems more of an advantage).
I would be more comfortable with this if all eligible voters were required to re-register, providing valid residential addresses, and proof of eligibility to vote, eliminating post office box, self-storage facilities, and other such "residences", as well as felons and dead people from the voter registration rolls, which I don't see being required, Secretary of State Sam Reed's, and King County Executive Ron Sim's assurances that "all will be well" notwithstanding.
Iranian leader's nuclear remark a surprise
As reported here, statements made by the lunatic in Iran about working to develop the more sophisticated P-2 centrifuge have come as a "surprise" to many "experts". The P-2 centrifuge would enable Iran to more quickly develop its' nuclear capabilities, and as I have stated over and over again, since it is the goal of the lunatic to develop nuclear weapons, this supposedly "new development" should not have come as a surprise.
IAEA officials in Vienna, and inspectors in Iran, will be pressuring the Iranians to either confirm or deny what the lunatic said in regards to them working to build P-2 centrifuges. As Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security said, "[Iran] has never come clean on this program, and now its president is talking about it.", do you really think they are going to "come clean" now?
Hardly.
IAEA officials in Vienna, and inspectors in Iran, will be pressuring the Iranians to either confirm or deny what the lunatic said in regards to them working to build P-2 centrifuges. As Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security said, "[Iran] has never come clean on this program, and now its president is talking about it.", do you really think they are going to "come clean" now?
Hardly.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Student Sculpts With Conservative Firepower
Rally Round the Criminals
I had been working on a bit about the (illegal) immigration issue, using an analogy to express what I feel on this, but Don Feder, in this opinion piece, pretty much sums up my (and I suspect millions of others) feelings regarding the (illegal) immigration issue, so I'll just point you to his piece, instead.
A General Misunderstanding
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, comes to the defense of SecDef Rumsfeld in this eloquent piece, saying in conclusion that " ... for distinguished officers to step forward and, in retrospect, pin blame on one person is wrong. And when they do so in a time of war, the rest of the world watches."
I couldn't agree more. The statements made by former military officers, calling for SecDef Rumsfeld to step down are totally uncalled for, and imprudent to say the least.
I couldn't agree more. The statements made by former military officers, calling for SecDef Rumsfeld to step down are totally uncalled for, and imprudent to say the least.
The Pelosi Doctrine for Darfur
In this opinion piece from OpinionJournal, it is reported that Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently expounded on her solution for the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur, Sudan, which is to send a "Special Envoy" to pressure the Sudanese government into stopping the killing through negotiation, something that didn't work in the Balkans, and won't work in Sudan, either.
Is Rep. Pelosi simply naïve, or delusional?
Is Rep. Pelosi simply naïve, or delusional?
"Tomorrow" is not a rational national policy
Mark Steyn weighs in on what he sees as a waste of time in the West's dealings with Iran and its' stated national goals of obtaining nuclear capabilities.
The hunt for the real McCain
Jonathan Chait, a liberal columnist for the (very) liberal LA Times and I - a conservative blogger - agree on at least one thing (imagine that!). Sen. John McCain is not really a conservative, and although Mr. Chait didn't come right out and call McCain a RINO in this piece, that is the only conclusion anyone who reads this will be able to come to.
Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
As reported here, the lunatic in Iran is making more threats to our friends, Israel, saying that Israel is "heading toward annihilation," and that "Israel [is] a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated." He also stated that the existence of Israel offends the "dignity" of all Muslim nations. This comes on top of their recent announcement that they were successful in enriching uranium, while rejecting the demand of the UN that they freeze all enrichment efforts by April 28th.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - the lunatic "in charge" in Iran only wants to enrich uranium for one thing, and that is for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. The intelligence services of the US, Israel, Britain, Germany and even France all agree that Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons, and I have a tendency to believe what those folks say, rather than the spurious claims of the people working for the lunatic when they say they only intend "peaceful purposes" for enriching uranium.
The statements by the lunatic belie those claims of "peaceful purposes", don't you think?
Hat tip: imperceptible1
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - the lunatic "in charge" in Iran only wants to enrich uranium for one thing, and that is for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. The intelligence services of the US, Israel, Britain, Germany and even France all agree that Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons, and I have a tendency to believe what those folks say, rather than the spurious claims of the people working for the lunatic when they say they only intend "peaceful purposes" for enriching uranium.
The statements by the lunatic belie those claims of "peaceful purposes", don't you think?
Hat tip: imperceptible1
Analysts downplay Iranian nuclear goals
As reported here, certain analysts are downplaying recent goals stated by the Iranians, after they had linked 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium, saying that it would take the Iranians at least until 2015 to 2020 to be able to produce enough enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons.
That's what analysts said about the old Soviet Union, as well - that it would take years for them to develop a bomb - and everyone was taken by surprise when the Soviets tested their first atomic weapon in a much shorter time than was estimated. It would be disastrous if the same mistake of underestimating the abilities and desires of the Iranians were made, as was made in regards to the Soviet Union 50 years ago.
That's what analysts said about the old Soviet Union, as well - that it would take years for them to develop a bomb - and everyone was taken by surprise when the Soviets tested their first atomic weapon in a much shorter time than was estimated. It would be disastrous if the same mistake of underestimating the abilities and desires of the Iranians were made, as was made in regards to the Soviet Union 50 years ago.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?
Victor Davis Hanson offers up his take on the lunatic running the insane asylum called Iran, asking if he has miscalculated with his ravings in this piece.
Gore in full "Chicken Little" mode - again
As reported here, Al Gore - he of, "I invented the Internet!", fame (or is that infamy?), is once again bloviating on "global warming", in effect quoting Chicken Little by saying that the sky will fall, "... predicting the end of all human life on the Planet Earth if Washington doesn't do something to stop Americans from causing global warming."
Meanwhile, "Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.", in an open letter praising the Canadian Prime Minister for his commitment to reassess Canada's position on the Kyoto Protocol.
Al Gore is no more qualified to speak of scientific matters related to climate change - which scientists cannot come to agreement over - than he is regarding what the US should do on the Global War on Terror (which, in case you missed it, is to surrender)!
Meanwhile, "Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.", in an open letter praising the Canadian Prime Minister for his commitment to reassess Canada's position on the Kyoto Protocol.
Al Gore is no more qualified to speak of scientific matters related to climate change - which scientists cannot come to agreement over - than he is regarding what the US should do on the Global War on Terror (which, in case you missed it, is to surrender)!
Iranian missiles nuclear capable?
Recently, the Iranians have been conducting military exercises, during which they successfully tested a new anti-ship/anti-submarine missile, as well as a new ballistic missile, the Shahab-3 which, according to this article, they have modified to be able to carry a nuclear warhead.
As I have posted about several times recently, Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons, and modifying a missile that has a nominal range of 800 miles (which can now reach Israel) to one of 2000 miles, as well as modifying the configuration of its warhead to be able to carry a nuclear weapon, in my opinion, only confirms their determination to develop nuclear weapons, proving that their claims of "peaceful intentions" is totally false.
As I have posted about several times recently, Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons, and modifying a missile that has a nominal range of 800 miles (which can now reach Israel) to one of 2000 miles, as well as modifying the configuration of its warhead to be able to carry a nuclear weapon, in my opinion, only confirms their determination to develop nuclear weapons, proving that their claims of "peaceful intentions" is totally false.
Terrorism - just a "demonstration"?
According to Professor Ron Geaves in the UK, the London bombings (as well as the Madrid bombings and the 9/11 attacks in the US, presumably) were just a "demonstration", and not terrorism. Professor Geaves would have us believe that using the term 'terrorist' demonizes people, and would rather we call those who kill innocent civilians "demonstrators" instead. His remarks were made during a lecture at the University of Chester to dignitaries and members of the Muslim community in the North West.
His remarks have elicited sharp rebukes from both Andrew Dismore, who described Prof. Geaves claims as "absolutely barking.", adding "What happened on July 7, 2005, fits with every international definition of terrorism. If any of the men behind the attacks had survived the incident they would have quite rightly been tried under the anti-terror laws. I don't think it's helpful that we have a mealy-mouthed academic trying to justify deaths of innocent people. It is ludicrous.", and from Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said that the London bombings were acts of "criminality" and "terrorism", adding "For me, the definition of terrorism is when an innocent human life is lost. These bombings were an act of criminality and terrorism because that loss occurred. No motive can justify an act of terrorism."
Later, Prof. Geaves also made this ludicrous statement, "Terrorism is a political word which always seems to be used to demonise people."
No, professor. Terrorism is an act perpetrated by terrorists, solely for the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible to induce terror in the population against whom the act was carried out. Terrorism is not merely a "demonstration". To claim otherwise is the height of elitist irresponsibility.
His remarks have elicited sharp rebukes from both Andrew Dismore, who described Prof. Geaves claims as "absolutely barking.", adding "What happened on July 7, 2005, fits with every international definition of terrorism. If any of the men behind the attacks had survived the incident they would have quite rightly been tried under the anti-terror laws. I don't think it's helpful that we have a mealy-mouthed academic trying to justify deaths of innocent people. It is ludicrous.", and from Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said that the London bombings were acts of "criminality" and "terrorism", adding "For me, the definition of terrorism is when an innocent human life is lost. These bombings were an act of criminality and terrorism because that loss occurred. No motive can justify an act of terrorism."
Later, Prof. Geaves also made this ludicrous statement, "Terrorism is a political word which always seems to be used to demonise people."
No, professor. Terrorism is an act perpetrated by terrorists, solely for the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible to induce terror in the population against whom the act was carried out. Terrorism is not merely a "demonstration". To claim otherwise is the height of elitist irresponsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)