Ed Morrisey at Captain’s Quarters has a post up about the Congressional Democrats and their determination to raise taxes any way they can, even if it brings our economy to a screeching halt. Here’s a link: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010322.php
The new tax attacks the engine of American economic growth: capital investment. These funds provide the funds that start businesses and create jobs. The lower tax on gains allows more money to stay in the economy, as investors can pursue greater risk when they keep more of the gains they earn. Reduce the earnings, and not only is there less to reinvest, it creates more hesitancy to risk what there is left.
Of course, the Democrats don't see that. They see an opportunity to raise revenue in the short term without considering the long term effects. The expansion of the last four years has taught them nothing. They want to start passing new top-down programs, and they need to start passing more confiscatory tax policies to fund them.
This is why elections matter. The Republicans certainly didn't cover themselves in glory on spending issues the past six years, but we're about to see Congress go sharply in the wrong direction. They will claim fiscal responsibility by passing more taxes to pay for their spending, which will make even more money available for earmarks, lobbyists, and the like. That's the real trap of government expansion -- it feeds on itself, and the money always runs short.
We have sixteen months of a Democratic Congress to endure. Hopefully they will leave a few dollars in our pocket by then, but at the rate they're going, it's looking grim.
There's a link to the Washington post article at the Captain's Quarters blog. Notice in the article the positive spin they give the new tax--that we're taxing CEOs at the same rate as other American workers.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Not So Fast, Mr. Reid!
Harry Reid has declared the war in Iraq "lost" and our generals "incompetent". But Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards Blog is skeptical.
“...[U]nder a more realistic set of victory conditions, we're actually doing pretty well:
We overthrew Saddam Hussein and the Baathists;
We killed his demented offspring;
We drove Iraqis to vote for a constitution;
We got them to elect a parliament -- twice!
We built up the most powerful Arab army in the region and have worked with the Iraqis to professionalize the army and the national police;
We rebuilt a huge amount of the infrastructure in Iraq, replacing the crumbling antiquities left behind by a couple years of war and decades of rule by Hussein;
We helped turn the Sunni tribesmen away from al-Qaeda, and now they are actually at war with the jihadis;
We have pretty effectively stifled the Mahdi Militia and the Badr Organization (the two main Shiite extremist paramilitary groups), such that neither actually runs the government (as many expected they would);
We have pretty much pacified 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces, and we are now bringing a counterinsurgency campaign to bear on the last three: Anbar, Diyala, and Baghdad;
And we did this all for a cost of about 3,500 American soldiers over four years. While every loss of a soldier or Marine is a personal tragedy, it's still an extraordinarily low number by warfare standards -- especially considering what we have accomplished."
I have several points of my own to add:
While our military has been engaged in Iraq, many thousands of Islamist jihadis have also been engaged there, and thousands of them have fallen under our guns, a point seldom acknowledged in the pages of the New York Times. Also, while thus engaged, Islamist terrorists have been unable to strike another blow for their cause against our civilian population on our own shores, even though they have vowed publicly to do so. Because of our own vigilance since Sep. 11, 2001, many attempts have been discovered and thwarted.
Rosie O’ Donnell proclaimed on the View that over 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our troop presence in Iraq, “so who are the real terrorists?”, she asks. But the truth is that the vast majority of actual Iraqi deaths, as opposed to those in the imagination of Ms. O’ Donnell, have been the result of Baathists and al Qaeda terrorists attacking Iraqi civilians and police, civil officers, legislators, mayors, etc., in a bloody attempt to sway the struggle of the Iraqi people for democracy and independence. Every time a terrorist suicide bomb kills an Iraqi, his or her family is either cowed into submission to the terrorists, or they resolve to resist however they can. The terrorists are not winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by indiscriminately killing men, women, and children. It’s a strategy that will, in fact, already is failing.
There is actually only one way that the current situation in Iraq is similar to the conflict in Vietnam, and that is the certainty of a bloodbath if our forces were to withdraw precipitously. The Baathists and al Qaeda would swoop into the vacuum that would be left, and blood would flow in the streets much like the sewage that flows there now.
There are reports of many thousands of Iraqis fleeing the country for other more peaceful countries. The vast majority of them are Sunnis. For many decades the Sunnis have had the wealth and power in Iraq, but not the numbers. The American troop presence in Iraq has upset that balance of power, and Sunnis, seeing which way the wind is blowing, and being unwilling to share their wealth and their power, but being unable to maintain it, are abandoning Iraq in droves.
The post, entitled “the Omnipotence Illusion”, by Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards Blog, is well worth reading. Here’s a link: http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/06/omnipotence_fal.html
“...[U]nder a more realistic set of victory conditions, we're actually doing pretty well:
We overthrew Saddam Hussein and the Baathists;
We killed his demented offspring;
We drove Iraqis to vote for a constitution;
We got them to elect a parliament -- twice!
We built up the most powerful Arab army in the region and have worked with the Iraqis to professionalize the army and the national police;
We rebuilt a huge amount of the infrastructure in Iraq, replacing the crumbling antiquities left behind by a couple years of war and decades of rule by Hussein;
We helped turn the Sunni tribesmen away from al-Qaeda, and now they are actually at war with the jihadis;
We have pretty effectively stifled the Mahdi Militia and the Badr Organization (the two main Shiite extremist paramilitary groups), such that neither actually runs the government (as many expected they would);
We have pretty much pacified 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces, and we are now bringing a counterinsurgency campaign to bear on the last three: Anbar, Diyala, and Baghdad;
And we did this all for a cost of about 3,500 American soldiers over four years. While every loss of a soldier or Marine is a personal tragedy, it's still an extraordinarily low number by warfare standards -- especially considering what we have accomplished."
I have several points of my own to add:
While our military has been engaged in Iraq, many thousands of Islamist jihadis have also been engaged there, and thousands of them have fallen under our guns, a point seldom acknowledged in the pages of the New York Times. Also, while thus engaged, Islamist terrorists have been unable to strike another blow for their cause against our civilian population on our own shores, even though they have vowed publicly to do so. Because of our own vigilance since Sep. 11, 2001, many attempts have been discovered and thwarted.
Rosie O’ Donnell proclaimed on the View that over 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our troop presence in Iraq, “so who are the real terrorists?”, she asks. But the truth is that the vast majority of actual Iraqi deaths, as opposed to those in the imagination of Ms. O’ Donnell, have been the result of Baathists and al Qaeda terrorists attacking Iraqi civilians and police, civil officers, legislators, mayors, etc., in a bloody attempt to sway the struggle of the Iraqi people for democracy and independence. Every time a terrorist suicide bomb kills an Iraqi, his or her family is either cowed into submission to the terrorists, or they resolve to resist however they can. The terrorists are not winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by indiscriminately killing men, women, and children. It’s a strategy that will, in fact, already is failing.
There is actually only one way that the current situation in Iraq is similar to the conflict in Vietnam, and that is the certainty of a bloodbath if our forces were to withdraw precipitously. The Baathists and al Qaeda would swoop into the vacuum that would be left, and blood would flow in the streets much like the sewage that flows there now.
There are reports of many thousands of Iraqis fleeing the country for other more peaceful countries. The vast majority of them are Sunnis. For many decades the Sunnis have had the wealth and power in Iraq, but not the numbers. The American troop presence in Iraq has upset that balance of power, and Sunnis, seeing which way the wind is blowing, and being unwilling to share their wealth and their power, but being unable to maintain it, are abandoning Iraq in droves.
The post, entitled “the Omnipotence Illusion”, by Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards Blog, is well worth reading. Here’s a link: http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/06/omnipotence_fal.html
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Father's Day Greetings
Aunt Cindy with nephew Jacob and niece Hattie
Some of the blessings of fatherhood, for example, grandchildren
and sons, daughters, and sons and daughters-in law.
Aunt Jodi and Hattie
Jacob Ryan Petersen, age 2
Michael Kavika Leiser
Hattie Mae Petersen
Bradley and sons Jacob and Izac
Brad and Jodi and sons
2 grandsons
Michael on his birthday
Cousins Hattie and Michael
Hattie
Noelle with son Michael and niece Hattie
Susan with nephew Michael and daughter Hattie
Brand new parents Noelle and Todd with their son Michael
Michael
Christian with daughter Hattie on the day of her birth
Hattie Mae Petersen
Baby Hattie
Happy Father's Day, dads!
Friday, June 15, 2007
Ban Guns, Make Murder and Gun Violence Go Away!
Tonight I watched the show on CNN by Anderson Cooper about gun violence in the south side of Chicago which has claimed the lives of 28 inner city school children so far this year. The most recent victim, Blair Holt, 17, a high school jr. just wrapping up his school year, was the most recent victim of random violence. Normally he takes a 40 minute ride on a CTA bus to his grandparents’ store to spend the late afternoon until his parents pick him up. He was on the bus with several of his school mates when a gang banger boarded the bus and opened fire at a rival gang member with a semi-automatic handgun, who apparently was unconcerned about hurting anybody else. Five students were shot, but Blair was the most seriously injured with a wound to the chest, with internal bleeding. He died later that night around 9 p.m.
Blair was not a gang member. His future was bright and he had set high goals for himself. His mother was a fire fighter and his father was a policeman. He had a strong and loving family background. But he was aware of the violent death culture around him and had no illusions about the possibility that his young life could be snuffed out at any instant. The fact that his life was cut so short by a random act of violence is a horrible tragedy.
But he’s only one of 28 such cases this year, of school children in Chicago, killed, not on school property but on their way to or from school, and some even in their own homes.
People in Chicago are angry and upset. There was a protest, and locals demanded safe passage to and from school. Other people are demanding that the state legislature pass stricter gun laws.
Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools had this to say when interviewed by Anderson Cooper: “The common denominator in Columbine, Virginia Tech, and all the other school shootings, is guns. People should not have guns. We as a society value our rights to keep and bear arms more than we value the lives of our children. It’s wrong.”
I’ll tell you what’s wrong: this kind of thinking that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to solve this problem. It’s wrong headed and simplistic. It doesn’t address the source of the problem, which is the violent inner city gang culture and morality that says “don’t be a snitch.”
Gun Control advocates point to countries like Australia and Great Britain, where they’ve outlawed gun ownership by citizens. Gun deaths have gone down. True enough. But now, only criminals have guns. The law abiding citizens have turned theirs in, and are now unarmed potential victims. Many criminals have kept their firearms, but the others have simply turned to knives, chains and other “contact weapons”. Violent crimes have not gone down, because violent criminals know they won’t get shot. Violent crimes have actually risen and the crime rate is spiraling upward.
You can pass laws making guns illegal, and the law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, but not the criminals. Criminals know that strict gun laws guarantee safety for armed criminals, so it doesn’t make sense to turn in their guns. Enforcing existing laws, attacking the gang problem instead of the so called gun problem, prosecuting criminals instead of gun owners, might have a more positive effect than just taking otherwise legal guns away from otherwise law abiding citizens. Criminalizing gun ownership is not going to solve the problem of inner city violence and death among inner city school kids on their way to and from school. Legal gun owners aren’t killing school kids in Chicago. All you do by passing more laws is make more people criminals. Enforce existing law vigorously and things might change. Make criminals responsible and accountable for their crimes, and things might change. Put the blame on guns, and make guns the villain, and nothing will change.
City and State executives who are responsible for enforcing the law aren’t taking that responsibility seriously, and only muddy the waters by calling upon the legislatures to write more laws with stronger enforcement provisions. But they feel the pressure to do something, anything that will make it look like they're actually concerned and want to do something, so that’s what they do. And legislatures add to the problem by responding to the pressure to pass more laws instead of sticking to their real function, which is to provide actual funding for vigorous enforcement of existing laws. And the revolving door that characterizes our current judicial system really adds to the problem by turning violent criminals loose because the jails and prisons are over crowded and incapable of holding our deserving criminal population. But let’s make more criminals by outlawing gun ownership by law abiding, non-violent citizens. That makes a lot sense, doesn't it?
Blair was not a gang member. His future was bright and he had set high goals for himself. His mother was a fire fighter and his father was a policeman. He had a strong and loving family background. But he was aware of the violent death culture around him and had no illusions about the possibility that his young life could be snuffed out at any instant. The fact that his life was cut so short by a random act of violence is a horrible tragedy.
But he’s only one of 28 such cases this year, of school children in Chicago, killed, not on school property but on their way to or from school, and some even in their own homes.
People in Chicago are angry and upset. There was a protest, and locals demanded safe passage to and from school. Other people are demanding that the state legislature pass stricter gun laws.
Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools had this to say when interviewed by Anderson Cooper: “The common denominator in Columbine, Virginia Tech, and all the other school shootings, is guns. People should not have guns. We as a society value our rights to keep and bear arms more than we value the lives of our children. It’s wrong.”
I’ll tell you what’s wrong: this kind of thinking that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to solve this problem. It’s wrong headed and simplistic. It doesn’t address the source of the problem, which is the violent inner city gang culture and morality that says “don’t be a snitch.”
Gun Control advocates point to countries like Australia and Great Britain, where they’ve outlawed gun ownership by citizens. Gun deaths have gone down. True enough. But now, only criminals have guns. The law abiding citizens have turned theirs in, and are now unarmed potential victims. Many criminals have kept their firearms, but the others have simply turned to knives, chains and other “contact weapons”. Violent crimes have not gone down, because violent criminals know they won’t get shot. Violent crimes have actually risen and the crime rate is spiraling upward.
You can pass laws making guns illegal, and the law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, but not the criminals. Criminals know that strict gun laws guarantee safety for armed criminals, so it doesn’t make sense to turn in their guns. Enforcing existing laws, attacking the gang problem instead of the so called gun problem, prosecuting criminals instead of gun owners, might have a more positive effect than just taking otherwise legal guns away from otherwise law abiding citizens. Criminalizing gun ownership is not going to solve the problem of inner city violence and death among inner city school kids on their way to and from school. Legal gun owners aren’t killing school kids in Chicago. All you do by passing more laws is make more people criminals. Enforce existing law vigorously and things might change. Make criminals responsible and accountable for their crimes, and things might change. Put the blame on guns, and make guns the villain, and nothing will change.
City and State executives who are responsible for enforcing the law aren’t taking that responsibility seriously, and only muddy the waters by calling upon the legislatures to write more laws with stronger enforcement provisions. But they feel the pressure to do something, anything that will make it look like they're actually concerned and want to do something, so that’s what they do. And legislatures add to the problem by responding to the pressure to pass more laws instead of sticking to their real function, which is to provide actual funding for vigorous enforcement of existing laws. And the revolving door that characterizes our current judicial system really adds to the problem by turning violent criminals loose because the jails and prisons are over crowded and incapable of holding our deserving criminal population. But let’s make more criminals by outlawing gun ownership by law abiding, non-violent citizens. That makes a lot sense, doesn't it?
Monday, June 11, 2007
Getting Out of Iraq; Four "Modest" Proposals
Dan Simmons, a writer and educator living in Colorado, has 4 modest proposals for getting out of Iraq. His website has a long post on the subject, and it’s well written and well thought out, but, again, long. Here’s a link: http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
Modest Proposal #1 SURRENDER,
and call it surrender, not redeployment or withdrawal or some other euphemism for defeat, and be prepared to accept and live with the consequences, not the least of which would be a nuclear Iran and Islamist jihad all over the world, including on our own shores and in our own heartland.
Modest Proposal #2 OUTSOURCE / PRIVATIZE the war.
There are currently 120,000 to 150,000 private military contractors, or PMCs (some prefer the term mercenaries) in Iraq. Doubling that number could be easily and quickly done. Cumbersome rules of engagement under which U.S. and Coalition forces operate could be dispensed with, along with the Geneva Convention silliness. It would internationalize the conflict in a real rather than rhetorical sense, because hundreds of North American, Asian, South African, European, Russian, even Israeli companies would be involved. Our own military could redeploy, rebuild and upsize. Military equipment currently in the field could be "lend-leased" to the PMCs instead of being abandoned or turned over to the current regime to be turned over to the terrorists to be used to commit genocide on the Sunnis.
Modest Proposal #3 TURN THE KEYS TO IRAQ OVER TO THE IRANIANS AND JOIN THE INSURGENCY, presumably similar to what we did in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation during the 80's.
"Let us consider the logic of giving the Iranians control of that fiction called the ‘government of Iraq’ and of American advisors then joining the insurgency. This would require leaving behind the few thousand special forces troops and CIA specialists needed to keep the Iranians in Iraq busy for the next decade as they try to fight a growing counterinsurgency supported by the United States and by rich Sunni nations just across Iraq’s porous borders."
I honestly don’t like the idea of leaving troops behind to become "insurgents". Americans would stand out too much. That won’t work.
Modest Proposal #4 PREVAIL (my personal favorite).
Modest Proposal #1 SURRENDER,
and call it surrender, not redeployment or withdrawal or some other euphemism for defeat, and be prepared to accept and live with the consequences, not the least of which would be a nuclear Iran and Islamist jihad all over the world, including on our own shores and in our own heartland.
Modest Proposal #2 OUTSOURCE / PRIVATIZE the war.
There are currently 120,000 to 150,000 private military contractors, or PMCs (some prefer the term mercenaries) in Iraq. Doubling that number could be easily and quickly done. Cumbersome rules of engagement under which U.S. and Coalition forces operate could be dispensed with, along with the Geneva Convention silliness. It would internationalize the conflict in a real rather than rhetorical sense, because hundreds of North American, Asian, South African, European, Russian, even Israeli companies would be involved. Our own military could redeploy, rebuild and upsize. Military equipment currently in the field could be "lend-leased" to the PMCs instead of being abandoned or turned over to the current regime to be turned over to the terrorists to be used to commit genocide on the Sunnis.
Modest Proposal #3 TURN THE KEYS TO IRAQ OVER TO THE IRANIANS AND JOIN THE INSURGENCY, presumably similar to what we did in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation during the 80's.
"Let us consider the logic of giving the Iranians control of that fiction called the ‘government of Iraq’ and of American advisors then joining the insurgency. This would require leaving behind the few thousand special forces troops and CIA specialists needed to keep the Iranians in Iraq busy for the next decade as they try to fight a growing counterinsurgency supported by the United States and by rich Sunni nations just across Iraq’s porous borders."
I honestly don’t like the idea of leaving troops behind to become "insurgents". Americans would stand out too much. That won’t work.
Modest Proposal #4 PREVAIL (my personal favorite).
Sunday, June 10, 2007
"The Demoralization of America is Complete"--Yuri Bezmenov, former Soviet KGB Agent and Defector
Here's an absolutely scary film clip of an interview with a former KGB agent and defector who outlines the basic strategy the KGB employed to bring about the "demoralization" of America, or the stripping of patriotic values from our society.
Here's a link to the clip. Check it out. It's about 5 minutes long, but it's not one bit boring, and it's well worth the time.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/from_the_kgb_playbook_demorali.php
Yuri Bezmenov says that Marxist-Leninist idealogy has been pumped into the soft heads of three generations of students, basically unchallenged or counterbalanced by Americanism or American patriotic values. These people are now firmly entrenched throughout our society and we can't get rid of them, we're stuck with them. They're everywhere. People like this can't be reasoned with or shown the truth because they won't believe it and they're incapable of assessing true information. Even if you shower them with accurate information, they won't accept it or be able to respond to it logically, because they have been stripped of their moral values. Even though the Soviet Union has collapsed and decayed from within itself, this Soviet strategy of subversion has succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. It's a very sobering take on the American Left and the future of our country.
Here's a link to the clip. Check it out. It's about 5 minutes long, but it's not one bit boring, and it's well worth the time.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/from_the_kgb_playbook_demorali.php
Yuri Bezmenov says that Marxist-Leninist idealogy has been pumped into the soft heads of three generations of students, basically unchallenged or counterbalanced by Americanism or American patriotic values. These people are now firmly entrenched throughout our society and we can't get rid of them, we're stuck with them. They're everywhere. People like this can't be reasoned with or shown the truth because they won't believe it and they're incapable of assessing true information. Even if you shower them with accurate information, they won't accept it or be able to respond to it logically, because they have been stripped of their moral values. Even though the Soviet Union has collapsed and decayed from within itself, this Soviet strategy of subversion has succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. It's a very sobering take on the American Left and the future of our country.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Woman Seeks Opportunity to Meet Other Women, Sues eHarmony.com
There’s an AP story out of Los Angeles today about a woman suing eHarmony.com because they don’t provide their dating service for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Here’s a link to the story:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070601/D8PG011G0.html
Linda Carlson said she tried to use the Internet site in February to meet a woman but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," Carlson said in a statement.
The company denied the allegation, saying:
The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages...Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted.
This isn’t about lesbians, gays and bi-sexuals being deprived of opportunities to meet similarly oriented people. If you Google "women meeting women" you’ll find 162 million entries. That’s an awful lot of "opportunities". There is no shortage of companies and websites willing to provide the service that Linda Carlson says she is seeking and being deprived of. This is more about trying to force your own standards on the world and making it conform to your narrow view of how it should perceive you. This isn’t in any way, shape or form similar to making colored people go to the back of the bus. It’s more like suing McDonald’s because they don’t serve pizza. And, I suspect, there are very deep pockets behind this ridiculous litigation. A sexual encounter is not exactly the kind of "opportunity" Linda Carlson is looking for.
I haven't actually checked this out; I'm just wondering if there are any services that cater exclusively to gay and lesbians, and if that isn't a problem, why isn't it? Is there some kind of double standard at work here?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070601/D8PG011G0.html
Linda Carlson said she tried to use the Internet site in February to meet a woman but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," Carlson said in a statement.
The company denied the allegation, saying:
The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages...Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted.
This isn’t about lesbians, gays and bi-sexuals being deprived of opportunities to meet similarly oriented people. If you Google "women meeting women" you’ll find 162 million entries. That’s an awful lot of "opportunities". There is no shortage of companies and websites willing to provide the service that Linda Carlson says she is seeking and being deprived of. This is more about trying to force your own standards on the world and making it conform to your narrow view of how it should perceive you. This isn’t in any way, shape or form similar to making colored people go to the back of the bus. It’s more like suing McDonald’s because they don’t serve pizza. And, I suspect, there are very deep pockets behind this ridiculous litigation. A sexual encounter is not exactly the kind of "opportunity" Linda Carlson is looking for.
I haven't actually checked this out; I'm just wondering if there are any services that cater exclusively to gay and lesbians, and if that isn't a problem, why isn't it? Is there some kind of double standard at work here?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Loathing In the Mainstream Media; Is Mitt Ready For It?
Is Mitt Romney ready for the loathing the media seems ready to heap on him as they did Ronald Reagan and as they currently do George W. Bush? According to Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s blog, he’s more than ready.
"...like Ronald Reagan, Romney effortlessly gets under his critics’ skin for having the audacity to be smarter and more insightful than they are. The media routinely dismissed Reagan as a senile dunderhead. Reagan was in good company there. Eisenhower had the same reputation a generation earlier. It never dawned on the gluttons at the press buffet to wonder how such dopes habitually ran circles around them. And how it must have shocked them when it turned out that Reagan was a more skilled and lucid writer than all of the knights of the keyboard who so vainly hounded him.
While Romney will be tougher to dismiss as an intellectual lightweight than Reagan was because of his impressive resume, his "simple" faith in America is sure to madden the media. It’s also telling that Klein attacks Romney for his "speed of delivery" and "sleight of hand." One of the things that drove the liberal Boston media nuts about Romney is that they were convinced he had something up his sleeve, but could never find it. For four years the local media unloaded haymakers in Romney’s direction, and never laid a glove on him. Drove them nuts."
It’s well worth reading the whole post. Here’s a link. Scroll down to "When Media Pit-Yorkies Attack".
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/
"...like Ronald Reagan, Romney effortlessly gets under his critics’ skin for having the audacity to be smarter and more insightful than they are. The media routinely dismissed Reagan as a senile dunderhead. Reagan was in good company there. Eisenhower had the same reputation a generation earlier. It never dawned on the gluttons at the press buffet to wonder how such dopes habitually ran circles around them. And how it must have shocked them when it turned out that Reagan was a more skilled and lucid writer than all of the knights of the keyboard who so vainly hounded him.
While Romney will be tougher to dismiss as an intellectual lightweight than Reagan was because of his impressive resume, his "simple" faith in America is sure to madden the media. It’s also telling that Klein attacks Romney for his "speed of delivery" and "sleight of hand." One of the things that drove the liberal Boston media nuts about Romney is that they were convinced he had something up his sleeve, but could never find it. For four years the local media unloaded haymakers in Romney’s direction, and never laid a glove on him. Drove them nuts."
It’s well worth reading the whole post. Here’s a link. Scroll down to "When Media Pit-Yorkies Attack".
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/
Practicing For a Day I Hope Never Comes
The day after the Virginia Tech shootings I went to the range and, for the first time in my life, bought a "human" target, a police training "thug" target like the one pictured. After practicing on regular pistol targets, I "qualified" by firing 50 rounds. I used magazines with 10 rounds each, and did all double-taps at about 21 ft. I had 13 misses, mostly "hits" outside the gray scoring area. Two or three were outside the target area, but still on the paper. I assume all the misses were the second shot from double-taps. A "double-tap", by the way, is two shots fired in quick succession, followed by a momentary pause to assess the effect, if any, on the target. A week or so later I went back, got another "thug" target, and "requalified", this time with 50 rounds fired at about one-second intervals, no double-taps. The picture is of that target. I had one miss that was on the target but outside the scoring area. My intention is to go back at least on a monthly basis and try to get better with double-taps.Prior to the shootings at Trolley Square in Salt Lake, I’m sure a lot of people in Utah were comfortable with the assumption that something like that couldn’t happen here. The week after the Trolley Square massacre applications for concealed firearm permits quadrupled at the Utah BCI.
I hope and pray the day never comes when I’m faced with a situation like the students and faculty were at Virginia Tech or the shoppers at Trolley Square. I can’t say with absolute certainty that I’m totally prepared to take a human life in defense of myself or loved ones, but on the other hand, I’m never going to be ready to crawl under a table and beg for my life.
How about you?
Same Place, Same Egret, Different Day, Different Fish
A week or so after I took those other photos I posted I went back to the same place in Lake Shore and found the same egret, I think, (they're all like identical twins).
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Life Goes On at the Wetlands Preserve
A couple of weeks ago I drove out to the Utah Lake Wetlands Preserve to see if there was anything interesting going on. I saw a couple of pairs of Canada geese with their goslings. Look hard, you can see them.
There are four goslings in this picture. Yeah, really.
I couldn't tell you what kind of bird this is. It's larger than a snowy egret and makes a noise that sounds exactly like a dog barking. I'm not kidding. I call it a barking bird. What would you call it?
Here are three snowy egrets slinking away.
Here's a precocious goldfinch who perched on a nearby fencepost and dared me to photograph him.
He got a little nervous when he saw me watching him.
Then he got a little huffy, like "Hey, are you looking at me?!"Bad Karmah? Maybe Not
Here’s a report about the changing situation in Iraq that you won’t see on the nightly news or in the pages of the New York Times. JD Johannes has the story over at Outside the Wire. Here’s the link: http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/outside-the-wire/kharmah-awakens.html
In the interest of, um, the "well-rounded" reader...
Instapundit links to this, uh, important information about breasts. He says he's received several emails indicating they'd rather learn about this first hand. Okay, here's the link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3221538&page=1
"If Only President Bush Would Obey the Congress"
Well, I took my own advice, and I clicked on the "next blog" tab and went on a wild little ride around the "blogosphere". One of the blogs I came across was a sincere, enigmatic little blog called "This Can Be Happening". It was very stimulating and interesting because I found myself disagreeing with the vast majority of what this lady said. But I didn’t dismiss her out of hand. Her earnest sincerity made me think, and when I think, I’m stimulated to write, and what I write is going to end up in the "pages" of this blog. So I put that blog in my list of favorites and it now resides over on the right sidebar. Check it out, and see if it doesn’t have a similar effect on you. Here’s a link: http://thiscanbehappening.blogspot.com/
Two things this lady regrets are (one), our inability to remove the president from office, and (two) the apparent Congressional reluctance to end the war in Iraq. She’s operating under the illusion that the President is morally and legally obligated to "obey Congress", and she also seems to think the vast majority of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it’s very clear that most Americans are unhappy about the progress we’re making in Iraq. But I don’t think that necessarily translates into a mandate to end the war, even though the media is anxious to present it in exactly those terms. The vast majority of Americans would be unhappy with an actual military defeat in Iraq, which is precisely what a precipitous withdrawal would be.
Here’s a link to the first post to which I responded. http://thiscanbehappening.blogspot.com/2007/05/if-only.html
She quotes from a recent speech by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Naval Academy:
"As the founding fathers wisely understood, that the Congress and a free press, as with a nonpolitical military, assures a free country–a point underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in 1782. He wrote ‘This is the seventh year that he has commanded the army and that he has obeyed the Congress. More need not be said.’"
And then she lamented: "If only President Bush would obey the Congress. If only the Congress would enact legislation to end the war..."
This was my response to that post:
In 1782 our country was still fighting for independence. George Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the army by appointment of Congress. He obeyed Congress because he honored the chain of command. The Constitution hadn’t been written yet. The office of the President as we know it didn’t exist. President Bush in 2007 is Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces by virtue of the Constitution, which gives that power to the president. He has no Constitutional obligation to "obey the Congress." However, Congress has the power of the purse, and could simply de-fund the war, but they'd have to take responsibility for the ensuing political fall-out, and Congressional Democrats are too craven and cowardly to do that. Congress has the power to pass legislation, but it still has to cross the president’s desk for his signature before it becomes law. If he vetoes legislation, Congress would have to over-ride the veto with a 2/3 majority. I don’t see that happening.
In another post she says:
"So what to do now? The Founding Fathers seemed to assume that the checks and balances would, uh, check and, you know, balance. We sign petitions, we vote, we blog, we appeal to those who are in positions of so-called power. And we say, "Impeach." But nothing happens.I say let's amend the Constitution so that We the People can bring a citizen's article of impeachment the same way we can make a citizen's arrest. My partner believes there should be a provision whereby some action (such as a recall or a confidence vote) is triggered if the approval rating for the President falls below some percentage, say 25%. A recall of my vote wouldn't work since I didn't vote for him, but you get the idea."
It’s worth reading the whole thing. Here’s a link : http://thiscanbehappening.blogspot.com/2007/05/testing-1-2-3.html
To which I responded:
The problem is you don’t have a large enough majority in Congress. Why not? Because people who share your opinion don’t constitute an overwhelming majority of the American people. A one-seat majority in the Senate is hardly a mandate. Neither is a 16 or 18-seat majority in the House. Any legislation passed by Congress has to cross the desk of the President and be signed by him before it becomes law, and to override a veto you need a 2/3 majority. So the people spoke out in November and voted for a change in leadership in Congress, not, as you say, to end the war. Democrats don’t have enough votes to make that happen. Committee chairmanships changed from Republicans to Democrats. Positions like Speaker of the House and Majority Leader changed hands. That’s all that happened.
You want public opinion polls to trigger a recall vote? American news media are overwhelmingly liberal left-leaning Democrats, about 90%. If you’re a Republican or a conservative looking for a job in the media, you better keep it to yourself, or you won’t get hired. They can’t possibly be anything but biased with a majority like that, and it taints everything they say about the war and about the President. The public opinion polls published in the media are suspect, because they don’t see the light of day if they don’t meet the requirements of the narrative the liberals are trying to push. And they consistently over-sample liberals and Democrats. Do Democrats and liberals outnumber Republicans and conservatives 2 to 1? They don’t, but let’s not let that get in the way of the agenda we’re trying to push. Public opinion polls are easily manipulated by the media. The Founding Fathers were wise to exclude them as a trigger for impeachment or recall.
In order for impeachment to take place there must be an actual crime committed by the President. The Constitution is quite clear on this; bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. Being inarticulate, mispronouncing "nuclear", and failure to "obey Congress" don’t qualify as impeachable offenses. So some people say "impeach", but other people like me say, "let’s have an actual crime committed first." The war in Iraq is neither illegal or immoral. Congress authorized the invasion. Do you remember that?
Two things this lady regrets are (one), our inability to remove the president from office, and (two) the apparent Congressional reluctance to end the war in Iraq. She’s operating under the illusion that the President is morally and legally obligated to "obey Congress", and she also seems to think the vast majority of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it’s very clear that most Americans are unhappy about the progress we’re making in Iraq. But I don’t think that necessarily translates into a mandate to end the war, even though the media is anxious to present it in exactly those terms. The vast majority of Americans would be unhappy with an actual military defeat in Iraq, which is precisely what a precipitous withdrawal would be.
Here’s a link to the first post to which I responded. http://thiscanbehappening.blogspot.com/2007/05/if-only.html
She quotes from a recent speech by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Naval Academy:
"As the founding fathers wisely understood, that the Congress and a free press, as with a nonpolitical military, assures a free country–a point underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in 1782. He wrote ‘This is the seventh year that he has commanded the army and that he has obeyed the Congress. More need not be said.’"
And then she lamented: "If only President Bush would obey the Congress. If only the Congress would enact legislation to end the war..."
This was my response to that post:
In 1782 our country was still fighting for independence. George Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the army by appointment of Congress. He obeyed Congress because he honored the chain of command. The Constitution hadn’t been written yet. The office of the President as we know it didn’t exist. President Bush in 2007 is Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces by virtue of the Constitution, which gives that power to the president. He has no Constitutional obligation to "obey the Congress." However, Congress has the power of the purse, and could simply de-fund the war, but they'd have to take responsibility for the ensuing political fall-out, and Congressional Democrats are too craven and cowardly to do that. Congress has the power to pass legislation, but it still has to cross the president’s desk for his signature before it becomes law. If he vetoes legislation, Congress would have to over-ride the veto with a 2/3 majority. I don’t see that happening.
In another post she says:
"So what to do now? The Founding Fathers seemed to assume that the checks and balances would, uh, check and, you know, balance. We sign petitions, we vote, we blog, we appeal to those who are in positions of so-called power. And we say, "Impeach." But nothing happens.I say let's amend the Constitution so that We the People can bring a citizen's article of impeachment the same way we can make a citizen's arrest. My partner believes there should be a provision whereby some action (such as a recall or a confidence vote) is triggered if the approval rating for the President falls below some percentage, say 25%. A recall of my vote wouldn't work since I didn't vote for him, but you get the idea."
It’s worth reading the whole thing. Here’s a link : http://thiscanbehappening.blogspot.com/2007/05/testing-1-2-3.html
To which I responded:
The problem is you don’t have a large enough majority in Congress. Why not? Because people who share your opinion don’t constitute an overwhelming majority of the American people. A one-seat majority in the Senate is hardly a mandate. Neither is a 16 or 18-seat majority in the House. Any legislation passed by Congress has to cross the desk of the President and be signed by him before it becomes law, and to override a veto you need a 2/3 majority. So the people spoke out in November and voted for a change in leadership in Congress, not, as you say, to end the war. Democrats don’t have enough votes to make that happen. Committee chairmanships changed from Republicans to Democrats. Positions like Speaker of the House and Majority Leader changed hands. That’s all that happened.
You want public opinion polls to trigger a recall vote? American news media are overwhelmingly liberal left-leaning Democrats, about 90%. If you’re a Republican or a conservative looking for a job in the media, you better keep it to yourself, or you won’t get hired. They can’t possibly be anything but biased with a majority like that, and it taints everything they say about the war and about the President. The public opinion polls published in the media are suspect, because they don’t see the light of day if they don’t meet the requirements of the narrative the liberals are trying to push. And they consistently over-sample liberals and Democrats. Do Democrats and liberals outnumber Republicans and conservatives 2 to 1? They don’t, but let’s not let that get in the way of the agenda we’re trying to push. Public opinion polls are easily manipulated by the media. The Founding Fathers were wise to exclude them as a trigger for impeachment or recall.
In order for impeachment to take place there must be an actual crime committed by the President. The Constitution is quite clear on this; bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. Being inarticulate, mispronouncing "nuclear", and failure to "obey Congress" don’t qualify as impeachable offenses. So some people say "impeach", but other people like me say, "let’s have an actual crime committed first." The war in Iraq is neither illegal or immoral. Congress authorized the invasion. Do you remember that?
The "Next Blog" tab
At the top of this blog there’s a "next blog" tab. If you click on it it will take you on a wild trip all around the world and you never know where you’re going to end up. I did that yesterday and browsed about 30 blogs or so, and it was very interesting. Some blogs are uproariously funny, others are gloomy and serious, and some are sweet and sensitive. Many are political in nature. If you want to spend some time just seeing what’s out there, I dare you to take a trip into the unknown world, and click on that tab. Yeah, I double dog dare ya!
One reason I like to do that is because it’s a way of meeting people in a safe way where you don’t expose yourself to any harm. You get to see what people are thinking and doing and saying about themselves and the world around them. It’s very eye opening. It really stimulates my own thought processes, too. It is also sometimes very entertaining.
So, if you don’t want to be amused, offended, entertained, puzzled or stimulated, don’t click on the "next blog" tab. I dare ya!
One reason I like to do that is because it’s a way of meeting people in a safe way where you don’t expose yourself to any harm. You get to see what people are thinking and doing and saying about themselves and the world around them. It’s very eye opening. It really stimulates my own thought processes, too. It is also sometimes very entertaining.
So, if you don’t want to be amused, offended, entertained, puzzled or stimulated, don’t click on the "next blog" tab. I dare ya!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Even a Pretty Bird Has to Make a Living
One of my favorite things to do is to photograph wildlife, particularly birds, and few birds are as photogenic as the snowy egret. Here are some photos I shot several weeks ago of an egret busy making a living at the Utah Lake Wetland Preserve in Lake Shore.
This egret was happy to keep working as long as I was happy to stay in my car and use my long lens to photograph him. 
This bird could move quite stealthily but quickly over very tricky terrain.
Gotta make a living.
Ah! My favorite--carp minnow!
Carpe di-YUM!**With apologies to Mc Donald's Corporation for stealing one of their billboard advertising themes, which they probaby stole from somebody else. So sue me.
Carpe carpio! (Seize the carp!)
Pass the tartar sauce, please.
This egret bristled up like this when it saw another egret land within 50 feet or so. It flew over to drive the "intruder" away, and then returned to this favored location.
Looking for the next meal.
Strutting.Monday, May 28, 2007
The Hazards of Wildlife Photography, Pt. 1
One day I was photographing the Canada geese at a nearby industrial park. A small flock of geese took flight and flew away, but as they did, one goose broke off from the group and flew in my direction. I was jubilant until I realized that the goose was, um, up to no good.
"Approaching target."
"Bomb bay doors are open..."
"BOMBS AWAY!!"
"See ya!"
"Wouldn't wanna be ya!"
Actually, I didn't realize what had happened until after I looked at the pictures. He missed, by the way.
"Approaching target."
"Bomb bay doors are open..."
"BOMBS AWAY!!"
"See ya!"
"Wouldn't wanna be ya!"
Actually, I didn't realize what had happened until after I looked at the pictures. He missed, by the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
