...but she may have had it coming. By that I mean she kind of brought in on herself.
Here’s a link to the story in the Kitsap Reporter. It’s an unintentionally hilarious story, really, about a couple in Kitsap, Washington who had trouble with a 300 pound black bear and handled it, um, badly.
In an attempt to try and scare the more than 300-pound black bear after spotting it on her property last Wednesday morning, the woman, a retired Navy doctor and volunteer Search and Rescue worker who wishes to remain unnamed, shot off her .30-06-caliber rifle, hitting the bear.
Okay, let me get this straight. She tried to scare the bear by shooting her rifle and hit the bear when she did. I assume, since she only wanted to scare the bear, she was aiming to miss it. And she missed. By hitting the bear.
I’m sorry, but my B.S. meter is blaring.
I can believe this woman is a bad shot. I just can’t believe she’s that bad. If you’re aiming to miss a dangerous creature like a 300 pound black bear, aim for someplace other than the bear, for crying out loud. No wonder she "wishes to remain unnamed".
I guess frightened people can do incredible things. And in this case, I do mean incredible! I’m not normally a suspicious-natured person. But this story, um, smells funny.
If she actually tried to kill the bear and didn’t get it done with the first shot, that’s much more plausible. Many hunters have botched one-shot kills, including myself. It’s not something to be proud of, but it happens. Maybe it’s illegal to kill a marauding black bear on your property in Washington state. I don’t know.
But okay, let’s take her at her word and agree that she’s a dangerously inaccurate shooter. I still have some questions.
Why didn’t the husband take the shot?
Why did he let her go first when they went looking for the now clearly dangerous wounded bear? Did he know something she didn’t? I love this quote from the story: "The bear was taller than I was," her husband said. "He was hiding in the brush ... then I heard movement and started walking behind her." Clearly a very clever man. Not necessarily a brave man, but a smart man, nonetheless.
Why did he wait until the bear had his wife’s head in its mouth before shooting it? The story says "[n]ot missing a beat, her husband shot five rounds into the bear." From a .460 Magnum handgun. But obviously, he missed a beat or two.
And the recoil of the gun was so violent it nearly severed his thumb? That’s way too much recoil. The .460 Magnum is an elephant-rifle cartridge, fully capable of taking down a 300 lb. black bear. But apparently, it’s fully capable of taking down the shooter, too. Somebody needs to rethink their choice of handgun caliber. I think some gun merchant motivated by cash flow rather than scruples saw this couple coming when they came into the gun store and sold them some very expensive guns and ammo when they had no idea what they were buying. The .30-06 is probably the most common hunting rifle in North America, but it's not a cheap gun. The .460 Magnum is exotic and expensive. Ammo for the .460 Magnum is $4.50 to $6.00 per cartridge.
Clearly this couple is a pair of babes in the woods and they have no business living in black bear country. But I don’t know. They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But does it make you smarter, too?
Have a nice day.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Anthropogenic Global Warming; Scientific Hypothesis, Not Ideological Dogma
Jeff Jacoby, a Boston Globe columnist, has written part two of his column on anthropogenic global warming. Here’s a link to the Jewish World Review. From the column:
Take the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike its previous report in 2001, which foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches. Why the revision? "Mainly because of improved information," the IPCC notes in the fine print. It goes on to note that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: "Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood." The science is getting better, but it's far from settled.
So, basically, the science is getting better and we’re learning more and more all the time. And the prospect that we can actually do something about climate change is still very much in doubt.
It’s well worth reading the whole thing. And here’s a link to part 1.
Take the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike its previous report in 2001, which foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches. Why the revision? "Mainly because of improved information," the IPCC notes in the fine print. It goes on to note that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: "Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood." The science is getting better, but it's far from settled.
So, basically, the science is getting better and we’re learning more and more all the time. And the prospect that we can actually do something about climate change is still very much in doubt.
It’s well worth reading the whole thing. And here’s a link to part 1.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
She's back! I mean...THEY'RE back.
The kids, Hattie and her mom and dad, are back from Florida. They stopped at our house for a quick visit. Look how big she's grown. And she's walking. Of course, we knew she would be, but it's still kind of neat. She even runs, kind of. And she loves to stick her fingers in electrical outlets. I guess we're gonna have to work on that.Thursday, August 16, 2007
Anthropogenic Global Warming: Solid and Settled Science or Politicized Ideological Dogma?
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist who wants to know why anthropogenic global warming propagandists [my term] are so intemperate. From his recent column:
Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy -- as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced.
Newsweek is hardly the only offender. At the Live Earth concert in New Jersey last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denounced climate-change skeptics as "corporate toadies" for "villainous" enemies of America and the human race. "This is treason," he shouted, "and we need to start treating them now as traitors."
Some environmentalists and commentators have suggested that global-warming "denial" be made a crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in Nuremberg-style trials. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen has suggested that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they dare to question predictions of catastrophic global warming.
When Marlo Lewis, a scientist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote an article opposing Congressionally imposed hard limits on carbon-dioxide emissions until technology exists to produce energy that doesn’t rely on carbon-dioxide, he was vilified and threatened by the President of the American Council on Renewable Energy thusly:
Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.
Mr. Jacoby concludes:
The interesting and complicated phenomenon of climate change is still being figured out, and as much as those determined to turn it into a crusade of good vs. evil may insist otherwise, the issue of global warming isn't a closed book. Smearing those who buck the "scientific consensus" as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying.
Clearly, global warming propagandists aren’t responding to skepticism with scientific argument but with slander and threats. This looks more like bigotry than solid scientific endeavor. I don’t think it should have a place at the table when we’re having a public policy debate. But that’s just me.
Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy -- as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced.
Newsweek is hardly the only offender. At the Live Earth concert in New Jersey last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denounced climate-change skeptics as "corporate toadies" for "villainous" enemies of America and the human race. "This is treason," he shouted, "and we need to start treating them now as traitors."
Some environmentalists and commentators have suggested that global-warming "denial" be made a crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in Nuremberg-style trials. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen has suggested that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they dare to question predictions of catastrophic global warming.
When Marlo Lewis, a scientist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote an article opposing Congressionally imposed hard limits on carbon-dioxide emissions until technology exists to produce energy that doesn’t rely on carbon-dioxide, he was vilified and threatened by the President of the American Council on Renewable Energy thusly:
Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.
Mr. Jacoby concludes:
The interesting and complicated phenomenon of climate change is still being figured out, and as much as those determined to turn it into a crusade of good vs. evil may insist otherwise, the issue of global warming isn't a closed book. Smearing those who buck the "scientific consensus" as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying.
Clearly, global warming propagandists aren’t responding to skepticism with scientific argument but with slander and threats. This looks more like bigotry than solid scientific endeavor. I don’t think it should have a place at the table when we’re having a public policy debate. But that’s just me.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
I Saw This Photo and Read the Caption and Laughed Till I Cried!
AFP photo" An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she said hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City."
Here's a link to a blog I saw it on.
I know I risk offending some readers, but just in case it's not obvious to you, the items the woman is holding up appears to be two live rounds of 5.56mm ammunition, the kind our coalition forces use. They haven't been fired.
Repeat: they have not been fired.
The only way they could have hit her house is if someone threw them, or used a slingshot. Some stringer at AFP has a diabolical sense of humor, or they believe their target audience is comprised of stupid and ignorant people who won't know the difference between live unfired ammunition, and bullets that have been fired and have been recovered. In other words, these guys are extremely arrogant and have enormous contempt for their audience!
Hillary Clinton: Optimistic Modern Progressive, or Old School Socialist in Thin Disguise?
AP photo/Mark Hirsch"Shared Prosperity" is code for Socialism, or redistribution of wealth through higher taxes.
From an AP story in the online Traverse City Eagle Record, Hillary Clinton seems eager to campaign against the Bush administration in her quest for the White House. Actually, it makes sense, because by doing so she forces the Republican nominee, whoever that may turn out to be, to distance themselves from the White House and it’s policies.
Calling herself an optimistic and modern progressive who would help the nation overcome economic disparities, Clinton said the U.S. can "grow" its economy amid global competition "and do it in a way that benefits all Americans."
Clinton said the Bush administration "is working for Americans with incomes at the very top."
"Americans work harder than anyone else in the world, yet we're not getting rewarded," she said. "We're seeing a growing gap between the haves and have-nots that threatens the backbone of our country, the middle class that built our country." [Notice how she cleverly includes herself as a "have-not" middle class American.--ed.]
I have to admit I lack enthusiasm for the senator’s projected platform. Socialist economies, such as France’s and Sweden’s, have stagnated over the years because they’ve been overburdened with the expenses of paying for their burgeoning entitlement programs by overtaxing corporations, businesses and "fat cats". This always has a chilling effect on any economy, no matter how robust.
Capitalism works because corporations, businesses and entrepreneurs are willing to take risks by expanding their businesses, hiring employees and spending capital. The motive, of course, is profit. Cut into that profit with heavier taxes, and capitalists become more risk averse, they cut back on expansion and hiring and spending, and the whole economy suffers as a result. That means the poor get poorer, while the rich stay rich.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
If the Facts Don’t Fit the Narrative, Can the Facts Be “Wrong”?
The recent Duke non-rape story turned out to be a bust for the main stream media. What really happened here was that politicians, race baiters, a rogue prosecutor, a feckless lab administrator and the media formed quickly into a lynch mob that nearly succeeded in railroading a group of young men who were clearly guilty of being white, rich, privileged, and perhaps of being rowdy and arrogant, but not actually guilty of a crime.
If anyone ever starts a museum of horrible explanations, the one-liner by Newsweek's Evan Thomas about his magazine's dubious reporting on the Duke non-rape case — "The narrative was right but the facts were wrong" — is destined to become a popular exhibit, right up there with "we had to destroy the village to save it."
What Mr. Thomas seems to mean is that the newsroom view of the lacrosse players as privileged, sexist, and arrogant white male jocks was the correct angle on the story. It wasn't. . . .
We now live in a docudrama world in which techniques of fiction and nonfiction are starting to blur. Many reporters think objectivity is a myth. They see journalism as inherently a subjective exercise in which the feelings and the will of the journalist function to reveal the truth of what has occurred. Two results are the emotional commitment to powerful but untrue story lines, and a further loss of credibility for the press. – John Leo
"The narrative was right but the facts were wrong"
Who buys this arrogant crap? Geez. And we wonder why our approval ratings are in the crapper?
I could be crazy but perhaps it is time to focus on the facts rather than trying to tell people what to think. --http://instapundit.com/archives2/008159.phpMichael Silence on August 14, 2007 http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/08/a_classic_mains_1.shtml
If anyone ever starts a museum of horrible explanations, the one-liner by Newsweek's Evan Thomas about his magazine's dubious reporting on the Duke non-rape case — "The narrative was right but the facts were wrong" — is destined to become a popular exhibit, right up there with "we had to destroy the village to save it."
What Mr. Thomas seems to mean is that the newsroom view of the lacrosse players as privileged, sexist, and arrogant white male jocks was the correct angle on the story. It wasn't. . . .
We now live in a docudrama world in which techniques of fiction and nonfiction are starting to blur. Many reporters think objectivity is a myth. They see journalism as inherently a subjective exercise in which the feelings and the will of the journalist function to reveal the truth of what has occurred. Two results are the emotional commitment to powerful but untrue story lines, and a further loss of credibility for the press. – John Leo
"The narrative was right but the facts were wrong"
Who buys this arrogant crap? Geez. And we wonder why our approval ratings are in the crapper?
I could be crazy but perhaps it is time to focus on the facts rather than trying to tell people what to think. --http://instapundit.com/archives2/008159.phpMichael Silence on August 14, 2007 http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/08/a_classic_mains_1.shtml
U.S. Military Has Increasing Moral Authority In Iraq...
...while Congress, um, doesn't.
In spite of what you may be hearing on the news, especially from such knowledgeable sources as Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, etc., progress is being made in Iraq, and not just militarily.
Michael Yon frequently imbeds with military units in Iraq, goes on patrols, attends town meetings, and gets out of the Green Zone to get a good idea what’s going on in Iraq. Here’s what he says in his latest dispatch:
Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it’s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide. The Iraqis I speak with couldn’t care less what is said from Washington but large numbers of them pay close attention to what some Marine Gunny says, or what American battalion commanders all over Iraq say. Some of our commanders could probably run for local offices in Iraq, and win. To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children’s history.
Michael Yon is well worth reading every time he publishes a new dispatch. There’s a link to his site on the sidebar, and here’s a link to this article on his site:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/three-marks-on-the-horizon.htm
In spite of what you may be hearing on the news, especially from such knowledgeable sources as Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, etc., progress is being made in Iraq, and not just militarily.
Michael Yon frequently imbeds with military units in Iraq, goes on patrols, attends town meetings, and gets out of the Green Zone to get a good idea what’s going on in Iraq. Here’s what he says in his latest dispatch:
Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it’s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide. The Iraqis I speak with couldn’t care less what is said from Washington but large numbers of them pay close attention to what some Marine Gunny says, or what American battalion commanders all over Iraq say. Some of our commanders could probably run for local offices in Iraq, and win. To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children’s history.
Michael Yon is well worth reading every time he publishes a new dispatch. There’s a link to his site on the sidebar, and here’s a link to this article on his site:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/three-marks-on-the-horizon.htm
Ethics Bill Proves Congress is Corrupt, Does Less to Correct It Than Hide It
Congress is sitting on a mountain of corruption, and the recent ethics bill proves it. From Ed Morrisey at Captain’s Quarters:
We have heard that the new bill keeps lawmakers from accepting free meals from lobbyists, as though a free $40 steak has been the root of all corruption on Capitol Hill, but it doesn't even do that much. There are over 20 exceptions to the food and gift bans in the bill. For instance, lobbyists can still fund trips to "well-attended" events, such as charity golf tournaments and receptions, or events where the lawmaker plays a ceremonial role. They can't give tickets to sporting events, but that changes if the Congressman tosses out the first pitch.
So let's recap. Lobbyists can't buy a meal unless it's part of a fundraiser, which means that the previous $40 steak can be legalized now by providing a $10,000 check to tenderize it. Lawmakers can't accept gifts to sporting events unless the lobbyists can make sure they get all sorts of attention from the crowd, preferably during election season. Lobbyists can't buy a round of golf for a Senator, but that changes if the round of golf comes at a charity function where lots of press usually attend.
Wow -- what a sacrifice our Congress has made for themselves in this ethics bill! No wonder lobbyists object to it. All Congress has done is to increase their prices, not take them off the market. In a way, it makes it even more easier for the richest interests to buy a Congressman and keep the hoi polloi from shopping at the Capitol Hill outlet store.
It’s worth reading the whole thing. Here’s a link:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
We have heard that the new bill keeps lawmakers from accepting free meals from lobbyists, as though a free $40 steak has been the root of all corruption on Capitol Hill, but it doesn't even do that much. There are over 20 exceptions to the food and gift bans in the bill. For instance, lobbyists can still fund trips to "well-attended" events, such as charity golf tournaments and receptions, or events where the lawmaker plays a ceremonial role. They can't give tickets to sporting events, but that changes if the Congressman tosses out the first pitch.
So let's recap. Lobbyists can't buy a meal unless it's part of a fundraiser, which means that the previous $40 steak can be legalized now by providing a $10,000 check to tenderize it. Lawmakers can't accept gifts to sporting events unless the lobbyists can make sure they get all sorts of attention from the crowd, preferably during election season. Lobbyists can't buy a round of golf for a Senator, but that changes if the round of golf comes at a charity function where lots of press usually attend.
Wow -- what a sacrifice our Congress has made for themselves in this ethics bill! No wonder lobbyists object to it. All Congress has done is to increase their prices, not take them off the market. In a way, it makes it even more easier for the richest interests to buy a Congressman and keep the hoi polloi from shopping at the Capitol Hill outlet store.
It’s worth reading the whole thing. Here’s a link:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Monday, August 6, 2007
Grandma Baird Has Gone Home...
First she had to take care of some "business", you know, birthday cards, anniversary gifts, etc.
Then she said her goodbyes...
And then Wendy whisked her off to the airport, where they flew back to San Jose.
We enjoyed having her at our house. It's the first time she's ever been to our home since we've been married.
Friday, August 3, 2007
“There are 250 to 500 bears around Tahoe, and everyone seems to have a bear story.”
Hmmmm, sound familiar?
Here’s a link to an interesting story in the New York Times about bears in Lake Tahoe and what a nuisance they’ve become. Here’s a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/02bears.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Last June Laura's sister Wendy and her family spent 4 nights camping out near Lake Tahoe, and they came home with some bear stories of their own.
Here’s a link to an interesting story in the New York Times about bears in Lake Tahoe and what a nuisance they’ve become. Here’s a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/02bears.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Last June Laura's sister Wendy and her family spent 4 nights camping out near Lake Tahoe, and they came home with some bear stories of their own.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Grandma Baird Has Come To Visit
Laura calls this trio of sisters "The Triumvirate", Carly, Amy and Tessa.
"The Triumvirate" poses with their mother.
Wendy and Laura pose with their mother, Marjorie Baird.
Three generations.
Four generations.
Great-granddaughter Audrey poses with her mother, her grandmother and her great-grandmother.
Four Generations
Owen and his mommy.
Cousins dogpile!
Hmm, a serious consideration, what to have for lunch.
Okay, not that serious.
What, no smoothies on the menu?!
Owen doesn't mind having his picture taken.Monday, July 30, 2007
Odd Discovery Under a Bed
We were rearranging some furniture getting ready for some company and we discovered this thing under a bed in one of the spare bedrooms. Anybody know what it is? Is it valuable?
I wonder if I can get some money for it on Ebay?Bad News for Cannibis Smokers: It Makes You Crazy
I read a news article this morning about recent research that indicates that people who use marijuana have an increased risk of psychosis, particularly if they already have a propensity for mental illness because it runs in their family. I'm not pointing any fingers or making any accusations. I'm just saying if you use cannibis and you know about mental illness in your family, be advised, that's all. Life is hard enough, why make it harder?
Here's a link to the story, if you're interested. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070726/D8QKIRI00.html
Here's a link to the story, if you're interested. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070726/D8QKIRI00.html
Jacob's Birthday Party & Water Fight
Jacob's birthday party theme was "water park"...
but it soon became "water fight".
Jacob's throwing arm isn't very well developed at age 3.
But his cousin Skyler's got a pretty good arm.
These youngsters may have bitten off more than they could chew when they challenged Uncle Brad with a bucketful of water.
The tables were quickly turned.
They had to run for it.BTW, all these pictures can be downloaded by right clicking. If you want to see an enlargement, just click on the pictures.
Jacob's Birthday, 3 Years Old
Jacob was so excited about his birthday presents he started opening them on his own, and we had to scramble to catch up.
He's developed his skill at opening presents, and he doesn't stand on ceremony.
Goggles!
What, more goggles?!!
Hey, look! Toy money!
Or is it toy money?
Happy Birthday to me!
Jodi decorated the cake, and Jake "helped".
Jake's face lit up when everyone started singing "Happy Birthday".
Take a deep breath...
and blow it out!Again, all these pictures are downloadable. Right click and "save as". If you want a larger copy, just left click on the picture first and download it.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Dems Determined to Raise Taxes, Any Way They Can
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
