Monday, January 30, 2006


At the risk of being mean I had to laugh when I saw this photo of the super nice, ethical, civil liberty champion Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez kissing Cindy (moonbat) Sheehan. I felt sorry for Chavez. Imagine Sheehan's face fastly approaching yours! If you had never seen Sheehan's face before you might look at this photo and think gee the guy closes his eyes when he greets someone the first time and gives them the handshake equivalent of a kiss? But in fact I think this was the only thing he could do as the horse face came closer to his! I don't feel bad about being mean here since frankly I see Sheehan as a charlatan and in the top 5 of most unpatriotic Americans. To embrace a foreign leader and join him in baseless demeaning criticism of her own country and its leader is bad enough. But imagine if she was a Venezuelan and visited Bush and joined Bush in his criticism of Chavez.....I'm sure her homecoming would be very different from what she will experience upon returning to the U.S. Isn't it amazing the bedfellows that the most outspoken liberal media darlings keep?

And I for one will support (but not with a vote) Sheehan's bid to unseat Feinstein! Could you imagine the material for us political junkies? Not to mention how anyone like Sheehan actually getting traction as a candidate would fracture Democrats into the real leftist wackos on one side and more centrist liberals on the other.....a nice bonus for conservatives! So make sure you support Sheehan for the Senate!

Alas, the WaPo's Charles Krauthammer offered some opinion on Sheehan being a bad choice for an antiwar voice that I think would be the achilles heel of her Senate campaign! To refresh your memory Sheehan calls Bush "lying bastard"; "filth-spewer and warmonger"; "biggest terrorist in the world". She blames Israel for son's death as well. Complained when the media stopped paying attention to her, and sides with what she calls "freedom fighters" in Iraq who killed her son.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Filibuster Pandering

I'm amazed! First Kerry, then Kennedy and now Hillary foams at the mouth about a filibuster of Alito. What a colossal waste of time. Of course those who support this doomed stunt say its the principle, it's to make a point, but they're wrong. No reasonable (and that word is important here) person would look at Alito's personal life and judicial history and label him as extreme, or one who made judicial decisions based on ideology ignoring the law! The evidence isn't there. Because a decision on cases involving abortion, race, big business, etc. doesn't favor your beliefs doesn't mean there was inappropriate personal bias. Are people influenced by their ideology? Of course, but the most important test of a judge is that they first and foremost show the ability to apply the law appropriately and fairly. These senators know Alito's resume is in fact stellar and yet they say Alito's appointment will mean illegal abortion, the end of women's rights, the end of civil rights, and so on. This is a lie and they know it, but they pander to the looney left , to the extreme liberals, as I assume they believe this is their base. The problem with the left is they don't practice what they preach. They say they believe in free speech and that civil rights are so precious, but they don't defend them universally. The examples are endless. In fact conservatives clearly hold these founding principles more firmly as we support the rights of those we loath. The obvious pandering will not bode well with many democrats who don't associate with the far left.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Gays embrace Nazi symbology

This post is my reaction to the story Teachers Won't Hang Gay Rights Poster. It has two elements that get me enraged. First is that people are not outraged that gay groups use the symbol (a pink triangle) that the Nazi's used in concentration camps to identify gay prisoners. The so called plight of today's homosexual in now way, shape, or form related to the inhuman actions of the Nazi's. This is not a symbol of pride nor is it appropriate as a symbol for any organizations use other than its historic reference as a marking used by an evil group. The image I have included (from the archive of US Holocaust Museum) shows the pink triangle used by Nazi's to mark those considered homosexual.

The second element that makes my blood boil is the incredible hypocrisy. The leftist, like the principle quoted in the story, don't see the problem hanging a gay symbol on the wall!!!!!! Gee, can I hang a Playboy Bunny on the wall in the classroom as a symbol for the straight students? How about a poster promoting Young Republicans? How about a poster for Jewish unity? How about a poster to make the Catholic students feel protected and welcome? OF COURSE WE CAN'T. But we can put something up that is 100% related to who someone wants to have SEX with on the classroom wall...that's ok?????...and Principal Amy Furtado has no F'ing clue what the controversy is about???? Tell me, please someone tell me, how these people are blind to the hypocrisy here.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Finally, An Honest Liberal

Well it took a few years but we have a first for the left, an honest liberal willing to tell us what he really believes. His name is Joel Stein and he writes for the LA Times. In his op-ed piece "Warriors and Wusses" he comes clean and lets us know that he does not support the troops.

He's the first liberal to actually understand that you can't oppose the war and support the troops, so I applaud him! He sums it up nicely; "...being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition."

Now the rest of the article is crap and full of half-truths and lies but I have to give him props for at least understanding the basic illogic of the vast majority of liberals out there.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Hillary Clinton's "plantation" pandering

Shelby Steele with the Hoover Institute has an excellent piece in the WSJournal today titled Hillary's Plantation. It outlines how the pandering to black audiences by Democrats is an approach based a grievance attitude that many blacks have. As Steele puts it the panderer always identifies with the suffering of those pandered to--always "feels their pain". The appeal is to the feeling of entitlement for the pain and suffering of their ancestry. Hillary's "plantation" example is a shameless example if, like me, you believe in the undertone of Steele's message. As I have said before in many blog postings, this is what the black leaders promote and feed on. The black leaders, and the stumping Democrats, need the black community to feel grievance, to feel they have been wronged and are entitled to special help. So Hillary and Al Sharpton benefit from black grievance and are happy to promote a wrong done hundreds of years ago as if its effect are fresh in the black community today.

Steele then outlines why Republicans can't pander in this way to the mostly Democrat black voter block as it's counter to big government and entitlement programs. Instead Republicans, who don't benefit from the outdated grievance attitude, embrace the achievement of minorities. Condi Rice is an example Steele says strikes fear in Democrats for if blacks can see opportunity for themselves in her success through hard work they loose. This is why the MSM pays less attention to Rice then they might normally pay to the Secretary of State. This is also why you see the disparaging cartoons and comments about Rice. She brakes the stereotype that the black and Democrat leadership need to keep the defeated blacks under there thumb.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Racist Entertainment

All I can say is WOW. The hypocrisy of those who so easily play the race card when the supposed victim is black is off the charts. Today BET (Black Entertainment Television) posted an article so racist, so ridiculous that it defies explanation. In Global Warming Could Spell Disaster for Blacks you could assume BET is playing to their audience (which according to their website is a measured 78% black). According to BET global warming is a fact, and it's bad "especially for African Americans". And for those blacks that are contributing to that global warming at the same level as whites (of course whites are to blame the most) they have an excuse that is also my fault..I guess: "It has been ingrained in our heads that to be anything, you must have everything" says EJCC steering committee member Nia Robinson. "Because some of us have a big car and a nice house, people aren't seeing that racism still exists. But Katrina showed that racism is alive and well in America. Now that people have that idea, I think we're in a really critical stage to organize, educate and mobilize people." Of course it mentions President Bush, and he like all whites are culpable for all the woes of a black person, and on it goes. Where is the outrage at the white racism in this dribble?

But this is only part of the story. Many of the shows on BET are based on the very black stereotypes that those who claim black racism and discriminationnation is still a big issue dislike, or so you would think. BET also actively promotes what are shockingly bad role models for their mostly young audience. They have a 6 episode show called Countdown to Lockdown where you follow rap artist "Lil' Kim" get ready to go to jail as she was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice . Blacks are blacks worst enemy. The black entertainment industry doesn't ask their target audience to reach for more, to be good, to love family and their fellow man...the white man is evil, the government is evil and if you're evil too, well it's not your fault. You're a patheticthetic and hypocritical group that promote a color bias in our society.

Conservatives Gone Bad

I was surfing the web the other night and happened upon some strange liberal blog that had a link to this article by Paul Craig Roberts. Like you, I had never heard of him but the complete stupidity of his article forced me to email him (since he puts his email link on his pieces, which I applaud).

So I did a bit of research on Mr. Roberts. Turns out he used to write for the very conservative website. Now I’m not exactly sure what flipped him to the not so bright side but I’m trying to find out.

In Robert’s latest piece he says that “Al Gore gave what I believe to be the most important political speech in my lifetime, and the New York Times, "the newspaper of record," did not report it. Not even excerpts…So much for "the liberal press" that right-wingers rant about. If a "liberal press" exists, the New York Times is certainly no longer a member.”

I guess nowadays not being reported on is somehow akin to being censored since that’s the title of the link to the speech, “Gore Censored”. I guess I’ve been censored my whole life by that standard.

He goes on to say “Gore challenged the American people to step up to the task of defending the Constitution, a task abandoned by the media, the law schools, and the Democratic and Republican parties. If we fail, darkness will close around us.”

Without Al Gore we’re going to be seeing the end of America as we know it, and soon.

In my first email to Roberts, I explained to him how the Clinton-Gore administration started the Echelon program and how it was used to wire-tap domestically long before the Bush administration started doing. I also explained to him how the New York Times reported on that development, which is summed up by this quote from a piece in the Times, “Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….”

I later ran across a previous article written by Roberts about Al Gore in 2000 title "The Slide Into Dictatorship”, where he said such glowing things about him as…

“Choose Al Gore and vindicate eight years of lawlessness: Whitewatergate, Filegate, Travelgate, Monicagate, Campaign Finance and Buddhist Templegate, "missing" Rose law firm and Al Gore e-mail documents, Justice Department stonewalling of law and investigations, the Waco massacre -- the list goes on ad nauseum. Topping it all off is the latest Gore scandal -- a secret deal between our vice president and a Russian prime minister. Did you know that Gore illegally exempted Russia from the economic sanctions that the U.S. imposes on all countries that sell arms to Iran? In addition, Gore violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act by keeping Congress in the dark about Russia' nuclear cooperation with Iran. Is this another instance of "no controlling legal authority"? Here we see the true colors of Clinton Gore: The law means nothing if a political purpose is served by ignoring it. No matter how powerful his office, no U.S. official has the power to grant exemptions to U.S. law, regardless of the end served."

I again emailed Roberts about this totally flip-flop and here is his response:

“So what? Gore is the only one today defending the US Constitution. The Constitution is far more important. I know many sinners who, despite their transgressions, stood up for the right thing when it counted.”

That’s the response you get from a Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is also a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

This is a potential President?

If you do a google search on Hillary and look at the sound bites that make it into the stories on her, ask yourself if you think she's presidential? And then, there is, of course the incessant criticism of every single thing the Bush administration has ever done. I always love hindsight critics who either offer no alternative solution or when they do it cannot be proven to have been effective because of course it's based on how people might have reacted. Or in the case of Iran, Hillary gives her normal hindsight criticism but then gives a solution with historical proof of being ineffective...UN sanctions!

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Happy Birthday Ben

Pete du Pont's opinion peace in today's WSJournal is one of the better and concise write ups on the history and legal precedence of the Presidents right to approve of the, now not so secrete, NSA eavesdropping program. I imagine it was Ted Kennedy's statement last week (along with it being Ben's 300 B-day) that gave du Pont the idea of taking this back to 1776. In response to the President using his constitutional powers to listen in on terrorist communications Kennedy called it "such an arrogant and expansive view of executive power" that it "would have sent chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers." As usual a vitriol spewing trust fund liberal has no facts and no history (and how about 300 yrs of history and precedence!) on their side. It's amazing how those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and laws described in du Pont's piece ignore these and their historical interpretation all in the name of political smearmanship!

Terrorist lovers sue Bush and NSA stomach hurts from laughing so hard...the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Greenpeace and several individuals filed a law suit against the President and the NSA....I'm not sure what they claim since unless there was even a more serious security breach than the leak revealing this program they can't know that their clients were a target of eavesdropping by this program! And what the hell is Greenpeace a part of this for? Their involvement is a clear break from their charter which is the tenant by which they raise donations from individuals. That would be a miss-use of funds if you ask me.

As for CAIR, check their core principles, note the only principle on violence says "8. CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state." Why does it limit this to "civilians"? Shouldn't they just delete the words "civilians by"? It's also evident that some of these leftist organizations have clients that ARE NOT citizens of these United States of piss off!

UPDATE: Just in....a clear cut case that the ACLU should take! But don't hold your breath...the defendant would be a school and the plantiff would be a young Republican! They'll talk a non-citizen Muslim over 17 year old Jeff Fraser of Fort Wayne, Indiana every time.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Free but not equal?

"we are free but not equal" Jesse Jackson said in a sermon at the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Simpsonville, S.C. on Sunday as part of an MLK remembrance service. Then there's New Orleans mayor Nagin who told a crowd outside city hall who was honoring King with a march "New Orleans will be Chocolate Again". Pastor Cummings of Bethlehem Apostolic Temple in Wheeling Ohio said some good things but then said "I believe America is a better America because people of color are more free." More free, but not fully free! There are plenty of examples like this one, they're not egregious, but they are reflective of an attitude I think perpetuates the very thing they wish to end. But the most pathetic politicization of an MLK event microphone was Hillary who during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, predicting the presidency "will go down in history as one of the worst" also said "the House of Representatives is run like a "plantation" where dissenting voices are squelched". Al Sharpton, who was at the same event, said Clinton's comments were important to her primarily black audience.

Pelosi attempted to better Hillary, but the attempt was a weak one. At a union labor breakfast honoring King the Terminator (Arnold) spoke and afterward Pelosi who was there said "the special election that Schwarzenegger called in November was a threat to King and the social justice for which he fought." This is only but a few of the many examples of partisan grandstanding that trample on MLK's memory and message of unity. Sadly, at a local SF bay area gathering in Walnut Creek Rev. Laurie Manning told the small crowd "Are we keeping the dream alive? How much has changed for African Americans in this country? How little?" Manning asked. "They were, in truth, betrayed by America's promise." "They were waiting for days in the astrodome," continued Manning, following applause. "They were waiting for days to die." Apparently Katrina was in fact a racist weather phenomenon! And you have to love that that an Imam from a local Mosque led a prayer from the Koran following the speeches, read first in Arabic and then translated in English. How appropriate!

Where's the outrage?

Tuesday at 12:01am 76 year old Clarence Ray Allen will be executed at San Quentin. If you were interested in attending the vigil in support of Mr. Allen getting a stay where you can rub elbows with Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Jamie Foxx, Snoop Dogg........well you can't. They aren't standing outside the gates for Clarence. Clarence is not black and didn't write a children's book. But like Tookie he was responsible for the death of 4 people (1 he murdered, 3 he had killed by a hit man while in prison). In looking for an image to put with this post I found out that some of the most successful rap/hip-hop stars where, or are, part of Death Row Records. It's amazing that black rap can reflect on prison, or death row, as if it's inevitable for them, or maybe it's a badge of honor? A white group using such caustic images and reference would be the equivalent of a skin head group. If you're black and on death row and about to meet your maker don't worry you will have plenty of celebrity pundits there asking for you to be spared. If you're black you also can freely promote and embrace that a criminal lifestyle is your destiny and not your fault....death row is in your future...the police are the enemy....and really you're innocent because your black. What an unbelievable bad message and horrible role models so many blacks in entertainment and professional sports portray. Not the original subject I wanted to cover, but I was motivated by a terrible record label name and image.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Global Warming's dirty little secret

A new study finds that 10% to 30% of the methane produced annually is from living plants and methane is considered one of the more problematic green house gases. The study posses the question of how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked all this time by the global warming community. DUH! Because it would suggest that green house gases have been around for millions of years. It would support the argument that warming (and cooling) are cyclic and that natural sources of green house gases (living and decaying plants, volcanoes, etc.) dwarf those produced by man.

I also have a dream

Monday is MLK day. Like MLK, I too have a dream. My dream is that one day those who profess that racism, in particular against blacks, abounds will no longer promote separatism and instead racial homogeny...a color blind society. But my dream is not promoted by those who claim to be my dreams biggest proponents. The "supposed" black leaders of today will speak at one gathering, or another, this Monday and speak of no progress, divisive rhetoric towards Bush or conservatives, and continued calls for special treatment of blacks. I have always been amazed at the hypocrisy of those who call for special treatment, special laws targeting someone by their skin color (or some definition of minority) all under the label of "equality". I'm certain that a search of the stories on MLK day gatherings when we reach Monday evening will show a lot of hate speech and miss-guided vitriol that would not be favored by MLK himself.

UPDATE (1/16): Not exactly what I was expecting but Gore used a MLK event and speaking engagement to attack Bush (and his administration) with hyperbole and innuendo. Gore talks about an abuse of power and any legality issues as if it's a foregone conclusion that there is wrong doing. No proof, he has no inside information so since he can't get in trouble for implying it's all evil he does so. Just a sample of this is Gore says at this MLK event that our executive branch has been "caught" eavesdropping....and ads "It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored." As if Dubya is eavesdropping on joe average citizen. And you explain to me how this diatribe by Gore that lasted for 7400+ words, and all the way through was mostly an anti-Bush fest, isn't an insult to MLK's memory?

Friday, January 13, 2006

Extremism on The Supreme Court

Just for fun I decided to do some research into Supreme Court nominees and I found a few very interesting facts.

For example: One past nominee has expressed sympathy for the viewpoint that there’s a constitutional right for both prostitution and polygamy.

A past nominee characterized the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as sexist institutions and proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them both with Parent’s Day.

A past nominee called for an end to single-sex prisons because they believed that if male inmates are going to return to society they need to know that males and females are equal and prison would be a good place to learn that important lesson.

A past nominee held the opinion that courts should order employers to have racial quota’s even with no evidence of discrimination on part of the employer. This same nominee owned an office for over a decade in a town that was majority African American and yet and never hired a black person.

You probably think that there’s no way such a person could ever be approved as a justice to the highest court in the land. You would be wrong, that person is Ruth Bader Ginsburg; she was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by a 96-3 vote.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

In His Own Words (Not So Much)

So the New York Times has an editorial about the Alito nominations today. The title is "Judge Alito, in His Own Words", I thought by the title it might be an enlightenng piece.

The problem being that in the 709 word diatribe against Alito they used only 23 of "his own words". I'm sure they never once took him out of context either.

Excellence in journalism yet again! Thank you New York Times!

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Grasping at Straws!

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are grasping at straws! It's very clear that there is no smoking gun, or flaw, in Judge Alito's past or testimony that is going to rise to the level of supporting a filibuster. It's amazing that, for example, they say he's inconsistent! So he said he has an open minded on abortion, but he wouldn't echo the phrase Judge Roberts used on Roe v. Wade who called it "settled law". Alito referred to it as "an important precedent of the Supreme Court". That's not inconsistent with saying he has an open mind! Then there is his membership in a Princeton University group called CAP from 30 yrs ago....which he listed on an job application 20 years ago. CAP as a group, or maybe individuals of CAP (it's not clear) had some issue with women and minority enrollment at Princeton. The judge can't remember being a member, actively or otherwise. So people say why didn't he denounce CAP later? Why should he? He had no political aspirations. If he was member of a group AND actively participated in questionable activities, or views, then you have a good concern. Short of that it's like saying I'm a racist because it comes out that a coach of one little league team, where I also coach a team in the same league, won't allow blacks on his team.

There is clearly no grounds for a filibuster here, and to mount one will create a bigger rift between the parties which in the end will not achieve any political gain.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Poll Bogosity

I have been in work meetings starting at 8am today and finally came out of my last meeting drained at 3pm. I was anxious to see how the Alito hearing was going. Checked a few blogs and it appears he's doing pretty well. Then I decided to visit some MSM sites to see what they were saying, but I got distracted. The first site I hit was CNN's and what I knew would be a bogus and slanted CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll was on the front page "Poll finds U.S. split over eavesdropping". What I hate about this is that most people don't bother to look at the actual polling questions and see if they think they are asked in a unbias way. Of course I don't think I have ever seen a poll (at least one anybody uses for their cause) that is unbiased. What's interesting is that this poll asked questions in way, I suppose, they thought would elicit an anti-Bush didn't.

For example they asked "Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?". You could argue that since the NSA eavesdropping program was only done on those shown to have some connection (like their phone number shows up on a suspected terrorist's cell phone speed dial!) to a suspected terrorist. So a more appropriate question on this would be "Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in monitoring communications of those shown to have ties to suspected terrorists?". They did ask the question in this form when they asked about how much people were following the story. But in the end the responses didn't go against the intent of the NSA program. Only 38% thought the Bush administration went to far, a total of 59% said it was about right or not far enough! I think the poll shows that more people than probably liberals would like to believe see our security as trumping the "civil liberties" card so often played. None the less CNN starts the story saying "Though Americans are growing more skeptical of the White House record on civil liberties...." and I assume they based this leap on a poll number they show for 2003 where 69% (10% more than today) say it was about right or not far enough. And I'm sure if you asked it in 2002 it would have been 79%. They could have as easily said that 4+ years after 9/11 the majority of Americans think the administration is on track or could go farther in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Haters of America and Freedom

You must be kidding me! my ideal world Belafonte should be the target of NSA eavesdropping! Do people like Belafonte and Glover actually do any homework on the dictators (Castro, Chavez, etc.) they love to meet with, idolize and adore? I suppose they will say the mountain of examples of evil and disregard for their people, and their freedom, is all fakery by those who oppose these leaders. Belafonte say Bush is "the greatest terrorist in the world" and I guess by comparison Castro and Chavez are humanitarians! Is this a case of dementia?

Single Issue Democrats!

As we start the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito this morning I predict his confirmation will not come without some Democrats looking like single issue demagogues. The abortion topic is surely one of the most polarizing for all. I believe that Democrats who harp on abortion and their theory on Alito's personal opinions (which are not the same as his rulings or interpretation of the law!!!!) do so not because their strong beliefs but in order to play on the emotions of the populace for political advantage. The paper trail on Alito's judicial career is vast and unless a Senator presents examples that clearly show incorrect application of the law in favor of personal bias they don't have a logic case for opposition. The typical MSM Democrat darlings (Schumar, Feinstein) were giving the predictable sound bites this weekend. While they pretend that they are concerned about Alito's position on: presidential powers, his 20 yr old application for deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, a case involving strip search of a mother and daughter and machine gun was clear from watching Schu-stein the vitriol was evident when Roe v. Wade came up. The NYTimes a hit piece on Alito this weekend and of course their case is made by being incomplete. Professor Bainbridge does a good job demonstrating that point. But the bottom line is MOST Americans are not single issue devotee's and yet for political advantage both sides play the game as if single issues define people. We do not live and die under the specter of abortion. There is also no evidence, I have seen, to show that the President or members of the Senate/House have an agenda to overthrow Roe. Yes, plenty don't like Roe but that's a far cry from actively trying to nullify it, which doesn't make abortion illegal as many will imply.

Just my own 44 years of observation, but I find it fascinating that nearly all liberals I have met that support abortion with tremendous passion (and today's environment supports very late term abortion) are also passionately against capital punishment. How they justify putting an undeniably innocent unborn child to death while opposing it for convicted and mostly poor excuses for human beings is beyond me. Oh, but of course all those on death row are innocent or have "changed"!

Friday, January 06, 2006

Meet supporters of the US Iraq strategy

I'm not surprised that Al-Qaida's No. 2 man Ayman al-Zawahri has now come out calling the US's recent public announcements on troop level draw down in Iraq a victory. Regardless of whether you think we should have ever gone into Iraq to leave it a breeding ground for Islamic extremists can't be an option. Bush and team are screwing up big time by talking about, or implementing, a strategy that has a timeline component versus measured progress. The left, who started the pull-out drum beat, will have American blood spilled on our soil on their hands if we don't finish the job...they have unfortunately pulled what was once a right thinking administration into their delusion.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Warp Speed Mr. Scott!

I found this item on about a "hyperspace" engine, ok a theoretical engine, that would essentially enable what Star Trek fans call "warp speed". Of course healthy skepticism is warranted but if you don't challenge barriers it's unlikely they will fall accidentally. The short description of this theoretical craft is one that could create an enormously powerful magnetic field (around the craft) which allows the craft to slip into another dimension where the speed of light is faster. You could travel at sub-light speed in this other dimension which would equate to faster than light speed in ours. So do other dimensions exist?

The emergence of superstring theory proves, or more accurately put requires, a universe with 10 dimensions. Well, at least there is mathematical proof in the minds of the very few who understand the freaky math used in this research. For most a simple integral (basic calculus) is hard to grasp but the multidimensional math used in superstring theory is hard even for those who "say" they understand it to describe. Equations are used to describe the 6 dimensional Calabi-Yau shape (named for the two mathematicians who did the math) to which you add the 3 dimensions we all are familiar with, along with the dimension of time makes 10. While a lot of the math and physics behind these theories is "out there" the biggest challenge, I suspect, would be to create a powerful enough magnetic field around a craft...maybe a flux capacitor is in our future after all!

Birds of a feather?

I find this story about Hillary's 2000 campaign and financing interesting as it parallels Tom Delay's problems down in Texas. So why isn't a prosecutor somewhere trying to indict Hillary? The case you could make against her has what looks to me to be more meat than in the Delay case...but of course we know why nobody is making noise on this don't we?

Washington For Sale

With lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion we may be looking at the start of the biggest story for 2006. Abramoff apparently took a plea deal where he will sing the names of those whose influence he bought and the list could take down a fair number of key politicians and could see others go to jail. The MSM isn't jumping on this story with the blood in water frenzy I would have thought but maybe that will change. And as yet another example of my previous post many stories, and talking heads (like Pelosi), immediately opined this was evidence of the corruption of the Republicans in general. While it is likely to be a serious problem for some Republicans there are plenty of Democrats who took green from Abramoff.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Do they teach fact checking?

This weeks tragic mining incident shows the media's systemic inability to get facts right. It would have taken a few minutes to confirm if in fact all, or most, of the miners were found alive with one of the many officials on the scene but many ran with the incorrect story. Playing fast and loose with the facts is so prevalent in the media I have to wonder how many journalist have journalism degrees and do they teach fact checking? The equally evil twin of playing fast and loose with the facts is story spin. There was probably a time when any media story labeled news had little to no spin...ah, the good old days. These days the media and politicians throw around innuendo, guilt by association and outright lies with impunity. This mining accident story also illustrates how disconnected the media is from news with tabloid journalism taking its place. Many media outlets, with FOX being notably bad, had 24 hour coverage of the incident and then when the outcome was clear went on incessantly about the timeline of how the incorrect news of surviving miners got out.