An Open Letter to Spammers

Good grief! Can you guys get any more stupid? Look, I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to do you a favor. Listen very carefully, because I'm only going to say this once:

• There is no part of my body that I feel needs to be made bigger. If anything, certain portions of my body need to be smaller, and I already understand that's only going to happen through diet and exercise.
• If I feel the need to deal with erectile disfunction (or have any other pharmaceutical need), I'm perfectly capable of having that conversation with my family doctor. I'm not going to have it with someone I don't know, and sending me hundreds of email messages doesn't mean we have a trusted relationship.
• I happen to work in the Information Technology industry. I'm not going to open emails that appear to come from ME, or from info@ or webmaster@ or administrator@ a domain that I control when I know I didn't send the message to myself. You couldn't possibly be more obvious if you put "THIS IS A SPAM MESSAGE" in the subject line.
• Speaking of the subject line, I'm not going to read email messages where the subject line is in Russian, or when the subject line consists of nonsensical phrases like "HoracioPuffyDick" or "Pendulum Butterfly" (I'm not making these up - these are actual messages that were blocked by my spam filter), or when it consists of a random string of characters, 0r wh3n u c1ever1y m1x l3tt3rs and numb3r$ t0 try t0 g3t ar0und my f1lt3rs. Whoever told you these were good strategies was lying to you.
• Emails that come from email addresses that consist of random characters (e.g., szosqisje@[some domain name]) will never, ever, be opened. Ever. Geez, at least most viruses and worms are clever enough to pretend to come from some real person that I might know. See previous comment about liars. Same goes for nonsensical domain names (e.g., hilarie0rax@olgafilippova.com).
• The most obvious of all are the ones where the nonsensical address is associated with a nonsensical subject line, e.g., an email from "petitioning5@kajconsulting.com" with the subject line "TamaraBodypartWhopping." (Once again, I'm not making these up, I'm looking at them right now in my spam quarantine folder.)
• I'm not going to buy cheap software from you. I know that what you're selling is, if not counterfeit, then being sold illegally, e.g., "OEM" licenses that can only be legally sold with a new PC. See previous comment about working in the IT industry. I am, in fact, hoping and praying that Microsoft tracks you down and nails your sorry ass to the wall.
• I'm not interested in a counterfeit Rolex watch. I outgrew the need to be pretentious several decades ago.
• I don't care about your opinion on which penny stocks are going to go through the roof next week.
• Sending me several identical emails in a row is actually counterproductive. (I'm sorry, that was a big word, wasn't it? It means that it makes it even less likely that I'll actually read one of your messages.)
• I'm not interested in helping you transfer several million dollars out of some third-world country. My God, are people still actually falling for that one? It's been around since before there was e-mail! You'd have to have been living in a cave for the last ten or twenty years to not know this is a scam!
• I'm not looking for an on-line institution of higher learning to sell me a diploma, and I'm even less likely to be interested when the email you send me about said institution is riddled with obvious misspellings. (But you can keep sending me those - at least they're good for a laugh when I'm having a tough day.)
• I'm not going to fall for the phony PayPal or [fill in the blank] Bank message telling me that I have to change my password right now or you're going to shut off my account. I'm particularly not going to fall for it when you send it to an on-line hosted email account (like Hotmail or gmail) that I have never associated with any of my bank accounts and/or when it claims to be from a bank that I've never done business with. What I will do is forward your email message to the fraud division of the institution in question with, once again, a fervent prayer that they track you down, lock you up, and throw away the key.

Look - you're not clever. You're not funny. You're not cute. You're just sad and annoying. Do the on-line world a favor: give it up and go get a real job. But I know you won't. You're not smart enough to know how stupid you are. Your only accomplishment is the creation of a very lucrative market for spam filtering software and services. Since I am involved in selling those, I suppose I should thank you, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

Thanks for listening - I just needed to get that off my chest.

A Little Christmas Potpourri

Greetings from the Left Coast! Today I thought I'd just share a few thoughts that have been running around in my mind that don't necessarily merit a full post of their own:

'Tis the Season for Political Polls
Obama is "surging" in Iowa! The latest poll shows him leading Hillary by 4 percentage points! Oh, by the way, if you read the fine print, it says the poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%. Now you might think that means that the worst case for Obama is that they're tied. But that's not what it means. You have to apply the factor to both candidates. In other words, Obama could have four percentage points more than the pollsters think, and, at the same time, Hillary could have four percentage points less. That would actually add up to an eight point swing...and that could go in either direction. So Obama could be 12 points ahead of Hillary, or Hillary could be 4 points ahead of Obama, and it would still be within the margin of error of the poll. So - do we really know who's leading in Iowa? Does this poll really mean anything at all? Well, it does mean that I got to share a little math lesson with you, but that's about it.

Calling all Constitutional Scholars
The media is full of scare stories about how your rights are being eroded by the Patriot Act, or by government surveillance targeted at terrorist communications, but I would submit to you that the one single part of the Constitution that has been more abused over the years than any other is the Tenth Amendment. In case you don't remember it from your civics class, here's what it says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Founding Fathers were justifiably concerned that the federal government would gradually exert more and more power over the states, so the Constitution was specifically amended to say that if the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a particular power to the federal government, or specifically deny that power to the states, then that power belongs to the states or to the people, not to the federal government. This, by the way, is the objection that a lot of people have to Roe v Wade: it's not that the federal government should outlaw abortion, it's that the federal government shouldn't be involved. It should be a matter for the states to decide through their respective state legislators who answer to the people of that state. But I digress.

What I really want to know is this: Given the inconvenient language of the Tenth Amendment, what Constitutional authority does the federal government have to dictate to private industries (in this case, the automobile manufacturers) what gas mileage their cars have to get? Isn't this something that market forces should decide? Or at the very least, the individual states? California has, of course, had more stringent emissions standards than anyone else for many years. I'm OK with that. Those laws were passed by the representatives of the people of California, and if the people of California don't like them, they can elect new representatives to change the laws. The way I read the Tenth Amendment, that's how it's supposed to work.

The Mainstream Media Just Can't Stand Good News From Iraq
In case you're still doubting that most of the media in this country has been ignoring anything out of Iraq that might actually be good news, and focusing on anything it can possibly find to advance the quagmire/failure/lost cause angle, consider this:

Mediaresearch.org monitored all of the Iraq stories that aired on the "big three" evening newscasts (that would be ABC, NBC, and CBS) for the period of September 1 - November 30. Turns out that in September, hard on the heels of General Petraeus' progress report (which they all were duly skeptical about), they aired 178 stories on Iraq, 42 of which were filed from Iraq itself. In October, they aired 108 stories. That's a 40% drop. Only 20 of them were actually filed from Iraq. In November, the number of stories dropped to 68, with only 11 filed from Iraq. So, as it became obvious that the troop surge was working, and things were getting better in Iraq, the coverage of the war declined - not just by a little bit, but precipitously! Coincidence? If you think so, I'd like to talk to you about this beachfront property I have for sale in New Mexico.

He Didn't Block a Single Document!
You know, sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh. After Hillary was questioned in an October debate about whether certain documents from the Clinton presidency had been withheld, Bruce Lindsey, the former president's "official representative on records issues" released a written statement that said, in part, "Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document." In a story that ran today in the New York Sun, we find that what Lindsey said is literally true: he didn't block a single document, he blocked 2,600 of them. Is anybody surprised by this? After all, even their old buddy David Geffen (who was a strong Clinton supporter until 2001 when Bill refused to pardon David's other buddy Leonard Peltier as part of his orgy of pardons as he left office) is on record as saying, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." Can someone please explain to me why these people have any credibility about anything?

Thanks for listening...and Merry Christmas!

I Never Thought I'd Say This, But...

Kudos to Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post!

Greetings from the Left Coast! It isn't very often that you'll hear me say nice things about the content of the Washington Post, but Warrick and Eggen should be commended for the piece that ran on Sunday, December 9, and exposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Bob Graham and Jay Rockefeller as the deceitful scoundrels they are. (I would have just said "liars," but I'm trying to be nice here.)

These three Democrats are among those condemning the Bush administration and the CIA for using "torture" in the interrogation of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay and other locations. Now we find that they knew of the practices way back in 2002 and 2003 Here's what the article says, in part:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange...long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

(You can read the full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?sub=new, although you'll have to register with them to get to the content.)

So, when 9/11 was fresh in everyone's mind, they had no objection. Now, when they think there's political gain to be had by accusing the Republicans of condoning "torture," they're all too happy to do so. Graham claims that he has no memory of ever being told about the harsh interrogation techniques. Pelosi now claims that she thought that the techniques were only in the planning stages and had not been put into practice. They naturally assumed that no one would call them on it. For once, they were wrong.

Thanks for listening.

There's a Reason It's Called an Estimate

Greetings from the Left Coast! Hoo, boy, life has been busy. There’s been so much going on lately that I want to write about, and I just haven’t had time to do it. I hope I can get somewhat caught up during the Holidays.

First of all, you may have heard that we have a newly-released National Intelligence Estimate. This is a rather thick document produced by the National Intelligence Council. It is a collaborative effort of sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies. There is generally a set of “Key Judgments” presented, together with the “confidence level” assigned to each, and then a whole bunch of background detail that was used to arrive at the Key Judgments. Keep in mind that the NIE is a classified document. Although frequently some of the Key Judgments will be declassified and released, all of the detail will not be – because to do so would risk compromising the methods we used to gather the intelligence.

A previous NIE, back in 2005, concluded that Iran was doing everything it could to develop a nuclear weapon, and we have therefore been doing everything we can diplomatically to make sure they don’t. The new one suggests that Iran actually halted its nuclear weapons program back in the fall of 2003. As you might expect, liberals in general and Democrats in particular pounced on this like a robin on a June bug:

Lee Feinstein, Hillary Clinton’s national security director, said the report’s findings “expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends.”

Barak Obama issued a statement saying, “The juxtaposition of this NIE with the president’s suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.”

The Arizona Republic writes, “Our leader is a man entrenched, inflexible, unwilling or unable to change his mind despite any amount of evidence laid before him, even by his own administration.”

The Centre for Research on Globalization in Canada writes, “Here we’ve got a president who lied us into making war on Iraq and who, despite a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), is stubbornly trying to lie us into another war against Iran.”

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Bush is a liar. He can’t be trusted. It's just another example of his incompetence. There’s no reason for all the saber-rattling over Iran. They’re not an imminent threat to us. We should concentrate on diplomacy. But what did the NIE actually say? As I’ve mentioned before, the Internet is a wonderful thing, because with minimal effort (like Googling “National Intelligence Estimate”) you can go right to the source. Here’s the actual text, which you can read for yourself at http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. [emphasis added] We judge with high confidence that the halt…was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

· We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
· We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.) [emphasis added]
· We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Elsewhere in the report, it is stated that, “We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad – or will acquire in the future – a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.” Barring that, the report states the obvious: Iran would have to make its own fissile material. The report acknowledges that Iran has resumed its centrifuge program, and that they are “continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.” It goes on to state “with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough [Highly Enriched Uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that is very unlikely,” and that “with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010 – 2015 time frame.”

And if all of the above isn’t sufficiently ambiguous, how about this: “We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.” And, oh, by the way, “We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites – for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon.” Gee, ya think? Wow, who’d have thought they’d do something like that in secret?

And how about this: “We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult…In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons – and such a decision is inherently reversible.

And, finally: “We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.”

In case you’re wondering what those terms like “high confidence” and “moderate confidence” mean, here’s how the report itself defines them:

“High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A ‘high confidence’ judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.
“Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”

So…are you clear now on what the situation is over there? Here’s what I took away from the report: We’re pretty sure that their “military entities” stopped trying to make a nuclear weapon in the fall of 2003, but we’re only moderately sure that this represented a halt to their entire nuclear weapons program. We frankly don’t know whether or not they still intend to develop nuclear weapons. We know that they’re continuing to enrich uranium, and to develop other technical capabilities that could be applied to making nuclear weapons. We think that the earliest possible date that they could make a nuke is late 2009 – which, may I remind you, is only two years away – but that they probably couldn’t make one before 2013, which is early in the potential second term of whomever we’re about to elect as President next year. We think that it’s going to be tough to convince their leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons, and acknowledge that, even if they decide to do so, that decision could be reversed at any time. And we believe that if they decide to develop nuclear weapons, they’re eventually going to be successful.

Now – imagine you’re the President of the United States, and the Director of National Intelligence has just laid this report on your desk. You note the glaring coincidence, conveniently ignored by most of the media, that in the fall of 2003 we had just finished kicking the hell out of Iran’s next door neighbor, and you suspect that just maybe, this might have played into their decision to halt their nuclear program. Libya publicly announced that they were halting their nuclear program about that time as well. On one level, the report is an acknowledgement that what we’ve been doing, which is to bring international pressure to bear on Iran, is paying off to an even greater extent than we knew. It is also an acknowledgement that Iran could restart its nuclear program at pretty much any time, and if they did, they could produce a nuclear weapon within two to six years. Finally, it’s an estimate, for God’s sake! There’s nothing there that is definite. And several of our allies have serious doubts as to its accuracy.

So…what do you do? A: Say, “Gee, you know what, I was wrong all along. Those Iranians are swell guys who just want a few nuclear power plants, and I’m sure Ahmadinejad was just kidding about wanting to wipe Israel from the map. I think we should just back off on the sanctions and let diplomacy take its course.” B: Say, “Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. If you want to avoid a really problematic situation in the Middle East, now’s the time…to work together.”

If you answered “A,” then I sure as hell don’t want you in charge of keeping me and my family safe. If you answered “B,” then your name is George W. Bush. Thanks for listening.

Told Ya So...

Greetings from the Left Coast. God, I hate it when I'm right about negative stuff like this. The bits were barely dry on the monitor from my last post when Russ Mitchell, on CBS's "The Early Show" yesterday morning, said, "There are signs that investors fear the economy may be headed toward a recession. Investors remain nervous about the subprime mortgage crisis and the credit crunch." Then, on last night's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams reported that Winnebago is expecting to report its first drop in orders in the last six years, wrapping up with, "Over the last three decades of U.S. history, every time orders for mobile homes have dropped, the economy has suffered a downturn soon after." Wow! Who'd have thought that sales of motor homes would be a better leading economic indicator than the ones the Federal Reserve is tracking? This was just a day after CNBC's Erin Burnett told Brian Williams that, "Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy's growth. And if consumers really start to pull back, that is what will turn us from the r-word of resilience to the r-word of recession." According to the Business & Media Institute, network broadcasts have run 29 stories in the last month that featured that "r-word."

Let's be very clear about something. There's a precise definition of what constitutes a recession. It's not when the rate of growth slows down, which is what the Fed is actually predicting for 2008. It's not when people feel nervous or worried about the future. When a country's Gross Domestic Product declines in two consecutive calendar quarters, that's a recession. You don't have to guess whether we're in one.

Here's another thought for you to ponder. Our economy runs in cycles of expansion and contraction. It always has, regardless of which political party was in power. If you want to see what they've looked like, take a look at THIS. Over the last sixty years or so, the average peak to peak interval has been about five and a half years. However, the last two cycles have been abnormally long by historical standards - lasting closer to ten years, with the actual contraction periods being relatively short. That suggests that maybe were actually getting a little smarter about managing the economy, and that maybe Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were actually onto something with this tax cut thing.

One more thing in closing. When I was an electronic technician (many years ago) I learned about this thing called "hysteresis." This is derived from an ancient Greek word that means "lagging behind." Here are a couple of examples from everyday life: the coldest days of winter actually come several weeks after the shortest day of the year, and the hottest days of summer likewise come several weeks after the longest day of the year. That's hysteresis. Next time you're adjusting the thermostat of your furnace, turn it up until the furnace comes on. Then turn it down until the furnace turns off. You'll find that you have to go past the point where it turned on before it will turn off. When you turn it back up, you'll have to go past the point where it turned off before it will turn back on. That's hysteresis.

Well, guess what? Hysteresis affects economic cycles, too. The country was already sliding into recession when Bill Clinton left office and let Bush inherit the problem. If Al Gore had won, we would still have had the recession. Then, on top of the contraction that was already taking place, 9/11 came along and smacked us upside the head. George Bush should have won an economics prize for reacting fast enough to put policies in place - including those tax cuts - that pulled us out of that slump that fast. What should really worry you is this: if the Democrats do take the White House, and do get rid of the tax cuts, and do all of the fiscally irresponsible things that Democrats have historically done, the damage probably won't show up right away. It could take a couple of years. And when it does show up, it will be too late to stop the slide from happening - we could do all the right things, and it will still take time to get things going again. Hysteresis. Remember the word.

Thanks for listening...

A Couple of Predictions

I've been looking in my Campaign Crystal Ball, and I have a couple of predictions for you:

1. Over the next year, we'll hear a lot about "tax cuts for the rich" as the Democrats continue to stoke the fires of class warfare for political gain.

Here's the reality: In 1980, 48% of total Federal Income Tax receipts came from the top 10% of income earners. In 2004, that same top 10% paid 71% of the Income Tax. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 35% of all Income Taxes collected. In 2004, the top 5% paid 58% of all Income Taxes collected. (That's over half, for the math-challenged.) In 1980, the top 1% of income earners paid 17% of the Income Tax. In 2004, they paid 37%. (Those tax burden increases are with the "Bush tax cuts." Imagine what will happen if they're allowed to expire!) At the same time, in 2006, it is estimated that 41% of all Americans paid no Federal Income Tax whatsoever!

Lest you think that all of those people are simply too poor to pay any tax, let me remind you that only 12.7% of households fell below the federal poverty level. So there are a lot of families out there who are not "poor," but they still aren't paying any Income Tax, while well over half of the tax burden fell on the top 5% of income earners. Oh, and in case you're thinking that the top 5% must be made up of really wealthy people, any household that made over $157,176 is in that top 5%. Let me say that one more time, so we're perfectly clear: Households who made over $157,176 in annual income paid 58% of all Federal Income Tax. Households who made over $300,000 in annual income paid 37% of all Federal Income Tax.

So, to those Democrats who continually hammer home the point that the "Republican tax cuts" will disproportionately favor the wealthy, I'd just like to say, "DUH!" Of course they do! It would be mathematically impossible for any meaningful tax cuts to not disproportionately favor the wealthy, because the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the tax! But let me also remind you that these same wealthy individuals create most of the jobs in this country. If we let them keep more of their money, they'll invest more of it and create more jobs. That's why the "Bush tax cuts" have been so effective at stoking the country's economic engine over the last seven years.

But they'll never tell you that. They will continue the drum beat that (sadly) has worked for them in the past: "Republicans = fat cats who favor the rich at the expense of the little guy." They think we're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. I find that incredibly disrespectful, and it's another reason why I won't vote for a Democrat. You want my vote? Don't insult my intelligence.

2. Expect the "R" word to be seen and spoken early and often. No, not that one. I mean "Recession." You can expect the Democrats to be the prophets of gloom and doom, and you can expect the mainstream media to parrot the line. It's already started. To the surprise of the gloom-and-doomers, retail sales over Thanksgiving weekend were actually up somewhere between 5% and 8% (depending on whose figures you want to use) compared to the levels a year ago. But the spin has already started: Overall sales are up, but individuals are spending less. They're also increasingly shopping at Wal-Mart instead of Macy's. They've shot their wad and sales will nosedive in the coming weeks. If there's any negative economic news to be found, you'll hear it.

Here's the reality: The national unemployment rate in October, 2007, stood at 4.7%. Most economists agree that anything below 5% is, for all practical purposes, full employment, because of the number of people who are unemployable, and the fact that there will always be a certain number of people who are between jobs. Our economy has been so strong that we've been able to absorb astronomical increases in gasoline prices, and the softening of home sales, and we still created 160,000 new jobs in October. All in the middle of a war! But still we are starting to hear the media ask, "are we headed for a recession?"

There's an interesting phenomonon in the country today: when asked, most people will tell you that they're doing pretty well economically. But they'll also say that they're concerned about the overall economy and where the country is headed. Heck, how could they not be, with the constant drumbeat of negativity? And it's only going to get louder between now and next November. As we've observed previously, the news out of Iraq is starting to get good enough that even the New York Times can no longer ignore it. If it continues to improve, by next summer the Democrats will be desperate for an issue that can make the American people forget how badly wrong they were on the war issue. That issue will be the economy. No matter how good things really are, you will be told that we are on the brink of an economic disaster from which only Hillary (or whoever beats her for the nomination) can save us. Count on it.

It's not bad enough that they have to root for the country's defeat in Iraq, now they're rooting for a recession. Sheesh. Anyway, thanks for listening...and remember what I said when you see it happening over the coming months...

A National Day of Thanksgiving

Greetings from the Left Coast! Holy smoke, I can't believe it's been two weeks since my last entry! Just when I think things can't possibly get busier, they do.

No political rants today. Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate. Maybe I'll get back to that tomorrow. For now, as I sit here in front of my computer looking out the window (Hugo Montenegro had it right - the bluest skies you've ever seen are in Seattle), I just feel profoundly thankful for many, many things.

• I am thankful that I live in the United States of America. No country that has ever existed in the history of man has ever been blessed with such abundance, and in turn given as much back to the world, as this one.
• I am thankful that I was blessed with parents who raised me in a Christian home, and imparted to me spiritual values that have always served as my foundation.
• I am thankful for my beautiful wife of 22 years. She is a source of strength to me as well as my best friend, and I love her with all my heart.
• I am thankful that, between us, we managed to raise five children who have all turned out to be responsible adults, three of them now with children of their own.
• I am thankful that we are both blessed with good health, and the opportunity to work at building businesses around things that we love doing.
• Despite the many difficulties of our time, I am thankful to be living now. The technology that enhances our lives was the stuff of science fiction not that long ago. And speaking of technology...
• I am thankful for the gift of sight. Just over six months ago, after having worn corrective lenses since the fourth grade, I went from not being able to read the big "E" to near-perfect vision. The procedure took about 15 minutes, and was done with small pulses of light. I still find this concept to be wonderful in the literal sense of the word.

This morning, I was reading the text of Abraham Lincoln's original proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving back in 1863. I was struck by several parallels with our own situation today: In 1863, we were a nation at war - although the war was on our own continent, not halfway around the world. The nation was deeply divided over that war, and Lincoln himself was under considerable fire because the war was not going particularly well. But read and ponder, if you will, his words:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict...Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship...and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God...It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

We are blessed, as no other nation that has ever existed on the face of this planet has been blessed. And, in turn, the world has been blessed through us, regardless of what some may say. When natural disasters strike around the world, who do people turn to for help? The good old USA...and we always give it - in amounts far greater than any other nation. (Not, by the way, just in total dollars, but pretty much any way you want to measure it.) Foreign aid? We hand it out by the billions, even to countries who continually turn and bite the hand that feeds them. Technological innovations, advances in medical science, advances in food production, I could go on and on about the things that we have shared with the world - things that exist because of our system of government that encourages innovation and investment. We are not perfect, but reaching for that goal is part of that indefinable thing called "The American Spirit," and it has led to a nation composed, for the most part, of good and decent people with a generous nature who care about helping others.

Let us be truly thankful, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thanks for listening.

Cause and Effect?

Greetings from the Left Coast! Some amazing stories moved over the news wires today. Here's one from the New York Times : "Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says." The lead paragraph goes on to say, "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

Did you catch that? Al Qaeda has been kicked out of every neighborhood in Baghdad! Did you get that, Senator Harry "This war is lost" Reid? Murders in Baghdad are down 80% from their peak, and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70%! This was such great news that the New York Times ran the story on....page A-19. I looked all through the Everett Herald this morning, the story wasn't there. I searched the Web sites of The Seattle Times and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The story wasn't there, either.

In related news, Iraqi refugees are starting to come home. The Iraqi government says that 46,030 people crossed the borders in October alone. This story was carried by the Everett Herald this morning, on page 4. I was able to find it (somewhat to my surprise) on The Seattle P-I's Web site, but couldn't find it on The Seattle Times' Web site nor on the New York Times' Web site.

Finally, the London Times reported today that senior Shia and Sunni religious leaders in Iraq are preparing to sign a "fatwa against violence." A fatwa is a religious ruling that devout Muslims consider to be equal to statutory law. Nothing like this has ever happened before. A quick Internet search didn't turn up any U.S. newspapers reporting this story.

Meanwhile, the Audit Bureau of Circulations released circulation numbers for more than 700 daily newspapers for the six-month period ending September 2007. The New York Times was down 4.51% for the daily edition, and 7.59% for the Sunday edition. Washington Post, daily down 3.2%, and Sunday down 3.9%. Boston Globe down 6.6% and 6.5%, respectively. Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News both down more than 10%. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch down 4.18%. The Seattle Times and the P-I, believe it or not, actually gained slightly - 1.2% and 1.1%, respectively. The Tacoma News Tribune, which itself was down 3.9%, credited the Times and P-I gains to readership they picked up when the King County Journal ceased publication this past January.

Many people don't see any correlation between these stories. The newspapers themselves certainly don't. In the face of steady circulation declines year after year, they blame on-line news sources, new media, radio talk shows, everything but their own editorial bias. I'm not sure that anything short of the total collapse of several major daily newspapers will wake them up (if even that does). I submit that an awful lot of Americans are simply tired of the newspapers' obvious agendas, as illustrated by the stories above. The New York Times ran 32 consecutive page one stories about Abu Ghraib. Front page, 32 days in a row. But they bury good news about Iraq on page 19 or don't cover it at all.

I used to be a Seattle Times subscriber. I cancelled my subscription for exactly those reasons. I was tired of the way editorial bias kept affecting what news was covered and how it was covered, and I was tired of the overt hostility to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Don't believe me on the hostility angle? I'll give you two movie titles: The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Passion of the Christ. Go search the archives and refresh your memories on how those two movies were covered.

It's nice to see that a lot of other Americans are doing what I did and voting with their wallets. That's the best way to effect change in a capitalist system. So keep up the good work, folks, I want to see those circulation numbers keep going in the right direction - down!

Thanks for listening.

The Lighter Side of Jihad

Greetings from the Left Coast! Warning: This is another one of those politically incorrect posts, this time mixed liberally with irreverence and sarcasm. Still with me? Cool.

I typically don't find the global struggle against Islamofascism to be a laughing matter, but this item on eWeek.com had me shaking my head in bemusement (which is not quite the same thing as amusement, but close, in this case).

According to an Israeli on-line military intelligence magazine, counter-terror sources picked up Internet traffic indicating that Al Qaeda was planning a Distributed Denial of Service ("DDoS") attack on November 11 against 15 targeted Web sites, and would expand their "e-Jihad" activities until "hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites."

The line in the article that got me was this one: "They offer would-be martyrs, who for one reason or another are unable to fight in the field, to fulfill their jihad obligations on the Net. These virtual martyrs are assured of the same thrill and sense of elation as a jihadi on the 'battlefield.'"

I hardly know where to begin with this. First of all, I'm not all that worried. The phrase "hundreds of thousands of Islamic hackers" strikes me as an oxymoron. It seems to me that the members of any fundamentalist religion have a built-in handicap when it comes to matching cyber-wits with good old porn-surfing, Canadian-bacon-pizza-eating, Diet-Coke-drinking Western cybergeeks. And by the time the terrorists spend enough time on the Internet to be able to effectively launch this kind of attack, there's a good chance that they'll be Westernized to the point that their religious zeal will be, shall we say, blunted to some extent. Mere religious zeal doesn't come close to the intensity of a non-stop 48-hour Twinkie and Diet Coke fueled massively multiplayer fantasy role-playing binge.

Second, would someone please explain to me what a "virtual martyr" is? Unless "first-person shooter" computer games have become way more realistic than they were the last time I played Duke Nukem, it's hard for me to imagine that sitting at a computer is going to quite match the "thrill and sense of elation" of, say, setting off your suicide vest in a restaurant full of women and children, being in a firefight with a highly-motivated U.S. Special Forces team, or facing the business end of a Cobra gunship. So if you can't actually die doing it, who decides when the point of martyrdom has been reached, and what are the criteria? And exactly what reward does a virtual martyr receive? A year's membership to 72virgins.com?

There are a lot of things in the world that I do worry about. I worry about terrorists smuggling bombs across our open borders. I worry about what Iran would do with nuclear weapons if they had them. I worry about what really happened to Saddam's WMDs. I worry about what will happen with Pakistan's nuclear stockpile if Musharraf is deposed by Islamic fundamentalists. I worry about what would happen if Iraq became a terrorist-run state. I worry about the people in this country who are too stupid, or too blinded by partisanship, to realize that we should be worried about these things. I don't worry much about "Bin Laden's cyber legions." Maybe I'm wrong, but if there's one place where the West's technical superiority should triumph it's in the area of technical superiority. I'll bet on our geeks to out-hack their geeks any day. You want cyber-war? Bring it on!

Thanks for listening.

The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy

Greetings from the Left Coast - and a warning: Today's entry will be Politically Incorrect.

Something in the morning paper caught my eye, for a couple of reasons. Seems that Ayman Zawahiri, considered to be the #2 guy in Al Qaeda these days, has released an audio recording in which he is threatening attacks against Libya. (Search on "Zawahiri + Libya" and you'll find a number of takes on the story.) Libya? Isn't Libya a predominantly Muslim country? And weren't they a sponsor of international terrorism not that long ago? Yes, and yes. You may remember Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up in flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing all 270 people aboard. After years of denying any responsibility for it, Libya ultimately admitted responsibility and reached a $2.7 billion settlement with the families of the victims. And that's just the highest-profile example of the things Lybia has been involved with.

But an interesting thing happened after Operation Iraqi Freedom took out Saddam Hussein. Suddenly, Moammar Kadafi decided that maybe it wasn't a healthy thing to be associated with terrorism. So in August of 2003, Libya formally renounced terrorism in a letter to the UN Security Council. In 2004, Libya announced that it was unilaterally dismantling its WMD programs. In May of 2006, the U.S. State Department formally rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and shortly thereafter restored full diplomatic relations.

That, of course, is what has Zawahiri all twisted up. By improving relations with the "Washington crusaders," Kadafi has become an "enemy of Islam." Abu Laith al Libi, a Libyan Al Qaeda commander who is busy in Afghanistan at the moment, added that Kadafi "is turning Libya into another crusader base."

This is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to calling for a death sentence upon Kadafi. According to the Sahih al-Bukhari , one of the six major Sunni Hadith collections (the Hadith are oral traditions recounting events in the life of the prophet Muhammad), the prophet was pretty straightforward about people who didn't keep the faith: "Whover changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." And the Qur'an states, "But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever." (Qur'an 2:217)

Now, I'm sure that Kadafi considers himself to still be a true believer, but this wouldn't be the first time that Muslims have killed other Muslims whom they believed were not sufficiently militant, or who "betrayed" Islam by aiding someone whom the party of the first part considered to be an enemy. Many have wondered why the citizens of Iraq haven't risen up and helped us throw Al Qaeda out. It's pretty simple: Until the recent troop surge, we would clean up a neighborhood, then when we moved on, the terrorists would come back. If you were a simple shopkeeper or tradesman, and you helped the U.S., the chances were pretty good that you were going to die a gruesome death for it. Even Iraqi leaders who have pretty good security of their own have been targeted, and sometimes killed, for their cooperation: e.g., Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni Muslim tribal leader who was killed by a bomb on September 14, 2007, 10 days after meeting President Bush in Anbar Province. The fact is that most Iraqis have no confidence that we're not going to just pull up and leave, and they're not yet willing to bet their lives that we won't - particularly when there are so many voices in this country, including those among our political leadership, who want us to do just that.

It's just not easy to be a moderate Muslim. To be sure, the majority of Muslims are not eager to take up the banner of Jihad, but they don't seem particuarly eager to condemn it, either...because it's downright dangerous to do so. The problem is succinctly stated by Ibn Warraq: "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." (Note that "Ibn Warraq" is a pen name - an alias under which the author writes, for the obvious reason that he himself would be a target if his true identity was known.) The Qur'an says what it says. The prophet Muhammad said what he said. And there has never been a repudiation of the militant principles upon which the religion was founded. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Kamal Nawash, a leader of American moderate Muslims, said in an August, 2004, interview that 50% of Muslims worldwide supported the jihad. Bernard Haykel, an associate professor of Islamic studies at New York University, stated during a New York trial in 2005 that "There are a billion plus Muslims in the Arab world, 90 percent of whom support Hamas." A 2004 survey conducted by Pew Research Center in Pakistan revealed that 65% favored Osama bin Laden, 47% believed that Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified, and 46% believed that attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.

Consider the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]...Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

The problem faced by moderate Muslims is that there are, as Khomeini said, hundreds of passages that Islamic terrorists can point to as justification for their actions. That makes it difficult for the moderates to sell their point of view, because if someone actually goes back to the Qur'an and the Hadiths, and reads what they say, they'll find that they say pretty much what Khomeini, and hundreds of other fundamentalist clerics around the world, claim that they say. Unfortunately, those who point out this structural problem within Islam are quick to be labled "Islamophobes," criticized for "hate speech," and accused of stirring up anti-Muslim prejudice and intolerance. This makes it well-nigh impossible to have the kinds of honest and open conversations about these issues that are essential if they are ever going to be resolved peacefully.

I don't claim to know the answer to how this problem can be resolved. But I'm pretty sure that the answer is not to stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend, for fear of offending someone, that the problem doesn't exist. To make the world better, we must first have a clear understanding of how things really are, not just how we want them to be. To that end, I highly recommend, as additional reading material, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades) by Robert Spencer, available at a bookstore near you, or through the link I helpfully provided.

Thanks for listening.

The Passing of an American Hero

Greetings from the Left Coast! It's been a while since we talked...not because nothing's been going on - far from it! - but because I was on a business trip, then busy playing catch-up after I returned from the business trip.

Today's entry is, I believe, a sad commentary on American society in general, and on our educational system and revisionist historians in particular. Retired Brigadier General Paul Tibbets died today at age 92. You may not have heard his name before today, but perhaps you've heard of the airplane he flew on August 6, 1945. It was named the Enola Gay (after his mother), and it was the B-29 that dropped a uranium bomb on Hiroshima.

Now please don't misunderstand me. It wasn't the dropping of the bomb that I referred to as a sad commentary on American society. Here's what I find sad: General Tibbets told family and friends before he died that he did not want a funeral service or a headstone, because he feared a burial site would only give detractors a place to protest. Surely, you say, we haven't come to that, have we? Well, yes, we have.

Consider this quote from Eric Malnic writing in today's L.A. Times: "He never apologized for unleashing the devastating explosive force and insidious nuclear radiation that leveled more than two-thirds of the buildings in Hiroshima and killed at least 80,000 people, and perhaps as many as 127,000." The clear implication here, of course, is that he should have apologized. Takashi Mukai, the head of the Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs was quoted in Forbes as saying, "What Mr. Tibbets did should never be forgiven. His actions led to the indiscriminate killing of so many, from the elderly to young children." Now, on one hand, I suppose I can understand that attitude from a Japanese citizen, particularly someone who had a close relative injured at Hiroshima, as Takashi Mukai did...but did he never hear of the Rape of Nanjing? Try cranking that phrase into your Internet search engine, or just go to http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/nmintro.htm, if you have a strong stomach. In the context of World War II, Japan is the last nation that should be pointing fingers at others for indiscriminate killing.

I doubt that very many of you have been given this historical context in school, but World War II was brutal beyond the understanding of most people who are alive in America today. It was total war - and the cold, hard truth about war is that the only goal of war that makes any sense is to destroy your enemy's ability to wage war against you as expiditiously as possible. The faster and more efficiently you can do that, the more lives are saved on both sides of the conflict.

Hiroshima wasn't targeted at random, it happened to be the headquarters of the Japanese Second Army and the Chungoku Regional Army, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at the nearby port of Ujina. It had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima.) Likewise, the main industry of Nagasaki, on which the world's first plutonium bomb was dropped three days later, was ship-building. Specifically, the ships used by the Japanese Navy.

Nor was the large-scale bombing of industrial centers unusual in WWII. The German bombing of Stalingrad killed 40,000 people. At least 30,000 died in London over the course of the war. 25,000 - 30,000 people were killed in the Allied bombing of Dresden. 80,000 - 100,000 people had been killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo just a few months before General Tibbets' mission. And I could go on and on. No one had precision-guided smart bombs or cruise missiles in 1945.

In August of 1945, preparations were underway in Okinawa for Operation Downfall - the invasion of the Japanese homeland. Estimates of the cost of conquering Japan that were made by military strategists at the time ranged from 1.2 million to 4 million American casualties, and 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties. Indeed, the Japanese defensive strategy was to attempt to raise the cost of invasion to a point where the Allies would negotiate an armistice rather than pay that cost. By contrast, the combined casualty count from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was somewhere between 275,000 and 300,000, depending on whose estimates you believe. So, taking the high end of that estimate against the low end of the invasion estimates, the math is pretty clear: the two nuclear bombings that ended the war resulted in roughly 5% as many casualties as the most conservative estimates had we not dropped the bombs and proceeded with a conventional invasion. Any clear-thinking, intellectually honest person should be able to see that it was the right decision at the time.

Here's something else to consider as well: had there been a conventional invasion, the Soviet Union would have been part of it. And when it was over, we would probably have had a "North Japan" to go along with North Korea and East Germany. Think for a moment how different our world would be today if that had come to pass!

Here's some of what General Tibbets has had to say over the years: “I was anxious to do it...I wanted to do everything that I could to subdue Japan...I have been convinced that we saved more lives than we took. It would have been morally wrong if we’d have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die.” And, on another occasion, "I viewed my mission as one to save lives. I didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor. I didn’t start the war, but I was going to finish it.” And, "You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war...You use anything at your disposal."

Former U.S. Senator John Glenn, who also knows a thing or two about war, has defended Tibbets, and has pointed to the number of lives that were saved by bringing the war to a swift ending. He is quoted in the Forbes article as saying, "It wasn't his decision. It was a presidential decision, and he was an officer that carried out his duty. It's a horrible weapon, but war is pretty horrible, too."

"I sleep clearly every night," General Tibbets said in a 1975 interview. May you sleep in peace now, General. And please accept my thanks, on behalf of the untold thousands of Americans alive today who would have never been born had their fathers died in Operation Downfall, for doing your duty on that August morning in 1945. And may I also express my profound regret that our collective memory has become so distorted that you must rest in anonymity rather than in the place of honor that you deserve.

Thanks for listening.

What You Mean "We"...

Greetings from the Left Coast! Back on October 3, we talked about the Phony Phony Soldier Controversy, and the unprecedented letter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and 40 other Democrats sent to Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel Communications. The letter asked Mays to publicly repudiate comments allegedly made by Rush Limbaugh (Clear Channel is the syndication partner for Limbaugh's show) and ask Limbaugh to apologize for them. The short story is that the comments had been taken out of context and distorted, as anyone with half a brain could tell.

So...a week or so ago, Mark Mays made the original of the letter available to Limbaugh, who posted it for auction on eBay, with the proceeds to go to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a charitable group that provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. The auction closed yesterday - for $2,100,100! This amount broke - in fact, more than doubled - the record for an item sold through eBay Giving Works - previously, the most expensive item sold was a Harley-Davidson from Jay Leno that went for a little over $800,000 back in 2005.

Shortly before the auction closed, Harry Reid took the Senate floor to apologize to Mark Mays, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the American people for the egregious abuse of power this letter represented, and promised to resign his senate post and spend the rest of his life raising money for charitable organizations that benefit the families of our fallen soldiers.

Hahahahahahaha....hahahahahahaha....*gasp*...hooooooooo!*pant*...*pant*...heheheheeeee. Golly, sometimes I just crack myself up! Of course he didn't do any of those things! Are you kidding me?

Well, actually, he did go to the Senate floor, and he did talk about the auction, and said it was "very, very constructive." "What could be a more worthwhile cause?" he said. "Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature," said Senator Reid. (emphasis added) Well, that's got to be the understatement of the year! Yeah, I'm sure it never entered into your wildest dreams, Senator, that the letter could backfire on you to this extent. He went on to say, "I don't know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education."

So, let me get this straight: I guess now we are supposed to thank Senator Reid, because if he hadn't written this letter smearing Rush Limbaugh, then it couldn't have been auctioned off for all this money that's going to a good cause. You do understand, don't you Senator, that the only reason this letter was worth anything is that it represents one of the most outrageous abuses of political power in recent memory? That's what gives it the kind of historical value that would make someone pay over $2 million for it. Apart from that, Senator, I'm not sure anyone would give a plugged nickel for one of your letters.

I remember a rather tacky old joke (politically incorrect by today's standards, I'm sure) about the Lone Ranger and Tonto. Seems that they found themselves one day surrounded by hostile Apaches with no obvious way of escape. The Lone Ranger turned to Tonto and said, "Well, Tonto, looks like we're really in trouble this time!" To which Tonto replied, "What you mean 'we,' white man?"

Rush Limbaugh, by the way, has pledged to personally match the $2,100,100 selling price, thus doubling the donation to the charity. He made this pledge when the letter first went up for auction, and called on Senator Reid and the other forty signatories to do the same. They've all been strangely silent on that issue. If they (or you) would like to donate, they (or you) can just go to http://www.mc-lef.org/Index.asp. The link is right there on Rush Limaugh's home page for their (and your) convenience. But until Senator Reid puts his money where his mouth is, pardon me for asking: "What you mean 'we,' Senator?"

Thanks for listening.

BullSCHIP!

Greetings from the Left Coast! This is my second blog entry today, but, dang it, there's just so much going on that demands attention! This entry returns to the subject of why I just can't imagine myself voting for a Democrat.

Today, Congress failed to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill. The Democrats are, as you might expect, accusing Bush and the Republicans who stood with him of heartlessly denying health care to millions of poor children. Here's a representative sample:

From the L.A. Times: "President Bush's bullheaded insistence on sabotaging reauthorization of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, will hurt the very people -- poor and middle-class Americans -- he claims he wants to protect." The Times goes on to refer to the Democrats' "relatively modest plans to increase funding..."

MSNBC ran the story on their Web site accompanied by a picture of Nancy Pelosi and a 2-year-old from Tampa, FL, who "was born with a serious heart condition and relies on...(SCHIP) for her health coverage." The implication is clear: those mean Republicans, led by the evil President Bush, want to deny poor Bethany access to health care for her heart condition.

Harry Reid has emphatically stated that he will not compromise with the administration on the issue. Pelosi promises she will keep working to find the votes needed to override the veto. Her words: "This isn't even an issue anymore...it's a value."

Singer/Songwriter Paul Simon called the decision "heartless." (Note to Paul: Love your music, but it doesn't automatically qualify you to set national fiscal policy. Go record another album, will you please?)

I'm sure you'll continue to hear plenty from radio, TV, and your local newspaper about what a terrible thing Bush and the Republicans did.

Here's the truth:

As the L.A. Times states, SCHIP stands for "State Children's Health Insurance Program." Under the program, the Federal Government gives money to the states (and let me again remind you that the only money they have to give away is ours - yours and mine) so the states can use it to provide health insurance coverage for children of families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance.

In 2006, federal funding of the SCHIP program totaled roughly $5.5 Billion. President Bush did not oppose renewing SCHIP funding. In fact, he asked Congress to increase the funding by roughly $1 Billion per year. Did you get that? The President was willing to sign a bill that would have increased SCHIP funding by around 20%. But that wasn't good enough for Congress. Congress wanted to double the funding. (That's a "relatively modest" increase to the L.A. Times.)

As things stand today, families who earn up to roughly $41,000 per year, which is twice the federally-defined "poverty level," can qualify for SCHIP subsidized health insurance coverage. The Democrats' plan would have increased that ceiling to three times the poverty level. That's $61,950 per year for a family of four. New Jersey would have been allowed to cover families with incomes of up to $72,275 for a family of four. New York was seeking a waiver that would have allowed them to cover families with incomes up to $82,600 for a family of four. (Hmmm...isn't there a Senator from New York who is an avid proponent of federally funded universal health care? And isn't she running for President? Ya think she'll be spinning this as a campaign issue?)

Now, I don't know about your neighborhood, but most of the people I know don't consider families who make $61,950 per year to be particularly "needy." So I'm not sure why you and I should be expected to subsidize their health insurance premiums. In point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office itself estimated that, had the bill passed, roughly two million people would have dropped private health insurance to go on publicly-funded insurance.

Hey, I'd love to have someone else pay my health insurance premiums, too. I'm a partner in a rather small business, and it's danged expensive, given the number of employees we have, for the business to pay those premiums. But I don't think it's right to ask you to pay my health insurance premiums. If you don't agree with that, heck, just send your check directly to me and I'll make sure that 100% of it goes toward my health insurance coverage - there won't be anything wasted on adminstrative overhead! Any takers? No? Hmmmm.

Well, how about this: tomorrow evening, just canvass the neighbors on your block. Knock on their doors, and explain that in the spirit of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, you're asking all of them to chip in to pay your health insurance premiums for you. Let me know how that goes, will you?

So keep all this in mind as you hear the Democrats, and their willing accomplices in the media, beating the drums about how the President vetoed coverage for all these millions of poor children and what a terrible thing it was. The fact is that he wanted the coverage renewed. He even wanted the coverage increased by about 20% per year. He didn't agree that it should be doubled. And, as a matter of fact, neither do I.

Some time ago, Scott Adams made the very astute observation in his "Dilbert Blog" that people on both extremes of a given issue tend to frame their arguments by misrepresenting the other side's position, then attacking the misrepresentation. He's correct in that both the extreme left and the extreme right tend to do that. It seems to me, though, that it's standard operating procedure for the Democrat party...and the biggest problem is that when they do it, the story is picked up and amplified by the media and they harp on it, and harp on it, and harp on it, until it becomes the conventional wisdom.

I'll try to be nice here and just say that the Democrats' arguments strike me as, shall we say, disingenuous. That sounds better than me saying that they're a bunch of lying S.O.B.s. Either way, I'm not voting for them. Not now, not ever.

Thanks for listening.

ABC to the Terrorists: Come On Down!

Greetings from the Left Coast. As I was driving home this afternoon, through the first serious wind storm of the season, I heard something on the ABC radio newscast that caught my attention. They were reporting that the TSA agents at Los Angeles International Airport and Chicago O'Hare had missed up to 75% of the phony "bombs" during recent test runs by federal agents.

Am I the only one who thinks that it was pretty stupid to broadcast this story? I didn't need to know this, and neither did you. What we needed was for the government to quietly get to work on solving whatever the problem was. What we most emphatically didn't need was a major news network saying, in effect, "Yo, terrorist dudes, come on down! Now's your big chance - the odds are 3:1 in your favor at the moment!"

Yeah, yeah, freedom of the press, blah blah blah, public has the right to know, etc., etc. I'm sick of journalists hiding behind those cliches to justify their own irresponsible behavior. There are lots of things in life that I have the right to do, but I don't do them - just because I can doesn't mean I should. What a concept. But I suspect that they don't spend a lot of time talking about that in your modern school of journalism.

How about some common sense, folks? How about actually putting the welfare of your own country ahead of breaking a story? Oh, wait, I forgot - the TSA is part of the Executive Branch of government, and Bush is still the President, so any story that might reflect badly on the administration takes precedent over any other concerns. Besides, if ABC hadn't run the story, they'd just look bad because CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc., would surely run it, and then ABC might look....like what, exactly? Like they were showing some leadership in responsible journalism? Like they were maybe rooting for their own country? Like they were actually concerned about the possible consequences of the stories they broadcast? Can't have that!

OK...deep breath...flame off...put down the soapbox and back away slowly...

Thanks for listening.

Blah Blah Blah Ginger Blah Blah Ginger Blah Blah Blah

Greetings from the Left Coast. One of my favorite Gary Larson The Far Side cartoons was the one that contrasted what you say with what your dog hears. What brought this to mind was the recent article that ran in just about every newspaper in the country about how retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, leveled a "sweeping indictment" of the situation in Iraq. From the New York Times to the Everett Herald, it was the same thing. HERE is a link to the New York Times version of the story.

Here's what didn't get reported. General Sanchez was addressing the annual conference of Military Reporters and Editors, and as part of his comments he delivered a scathing indictment of media bias in the coverage of the Iraq war. He said, in part,

"As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front-page stories you have written, and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed...For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the 'collateral damage' you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct...The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war...For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own pre-conceived notions, biases and agendas."

Didn't read that in your local paper, did you? I encourage you to read more of what General Sanchez had to say. You can find it HERE.

"Blah blah blah Bush is bad blah blah blah blah Iraq is a disaster blah blah blah blah blah." It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

Thanks for listening. I can only hope you actually heard everything.

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth

Greetings from the Left Coast! There are days when it feels like I am trapped on the wrong side of the looking-glass, and today is one of those days. (Anyone who doesn't understand the reference I just made needs to spend some time reading Lewis Carroll.) The Nobel Prize committee in Oslo, Norway, today awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Oh, and also to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Peace Prize. Setting aside for a moment that there is still a fair amount of scientific controversy about climate change, regardless of what you may have heard elsewhere, how does this relate to peace?

I spent a fair amount of time on the official Nobel Prize Web site today trying to find some statement of what the guidelines for nomination might be. I was not successful. However, in reviewing the list of people and organizations who have won the Peace Prize over the years, nearly all of them had something to do with, well, peace. Or at least with humanitarian efforts that relieved human suffering, like Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, or the Red Cross. (The glaring exception being the award to Yasser Arafat in 1994, whose primary contribution to peace was killing innocent people.) Climate change? Peace Prize? I'm not getting the relationship.

Al won the prize, of course, largely because of his film An Inconvenient Truth. That film, if you recall, also won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. There were a few people who protested that the film shouldn't even have been considered in the Documentary category, because, according to the Academy's own rules, a documentary "may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction." (emphasis added) The protesters pointed out that several aspects of the film, including the scene of the poor drowning polar bears, failed this test. Of course, as most people expected, political correctness trumped factual accuracy, and Al got his Oscar.

Interestingly enough, the announcement of the Nobel award comes hard on the heels of an announcement that a British court has found that the film does indeed contain at least nine inaccuracies, is politically biased, and that teachers who want to show it to their students must warn them of the bias and inaccuracies first. James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at The Heartland Institute, elaborated on the courts findings:

• The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
• The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
• The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
• The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
• The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
• The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
• The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
• The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
• The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.

According to Taylor, the court also took into account Al Gore's statement in Grist Magazine that "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is."

Um...Al...an over-representation of factual presentations? Is that anything like the over-representation of facts that went, "I did not have sex with that woman?" Guess you were paying attention during those 8 years you worked for Bill.

So the real inconvenient truth here is that the Academy Award, and now the Nobel Peace Prize, has been awarded largely on the basis of inaccuracies and "over-representations." Olympic athletes who are caught cheating have to give back their medals - how about it, Al? Gonna give back the Oscar? No, I didn't think so.

Every American soldier who has been wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is more deserving of this prize than Al Gore. Every family member of every American soldier who has been wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is more deserving of this prize than Al Gore. I find it absolutely outrageous. And don't even get me started on awarding a Peace Prize to anything associated with the United Nations.

If you want to get a more balanced view of the whole global warming industry - and make no mistake, it is an industry that's making a lot of money for a lot of people, including Al Gore - read this article by Sci Fi author Orson Scott Card, then do an Internet search on Stephen McIntyre. But in case you don't have time to do that, here's what we really know about global warming:

• The earth's climate is constantly changing.
• We are currently in a warming period, and have been since the end of the last Ice Age.
• There have been times in recent history (meaning over the last couple thousand years) when the overall climate was warmer than it is today. A warm period during the heyday of the Vikings allowed them to establish farming communities in Greenland.
• There is NOT consensus in the scientific community over what impact mankind may have on climate change, nor over whether we are even capable of doing anything about it.
• It's likely that the solar cycle has more effect on the global climate than anything we do or don't do.
• One good volcanic eruption will cause more climate change than anything we've done in the last thousand years. (Just do an Internet search on "Mount Mazama" - which is now known as Crater Lake.)
• Pollution is bad, and we should try to do less of it.

Thanks for listening - and stay warm out there!

Back to School Reading Recommendation

Greetings from the Left Coast! From time to time, we'll share with you some of the contents of our Left Coast Reading Room. Since school has started, we'll start things off on an educational theme.

Over the summer, I picked up Volume II of William Bennett's synopsis of American history: America the Last Best Hope. I read Volume I shortly after it was published in 2006, and snapped up Volume II as soon as I knew it was available. I cannot adequately express how strongly I recommend this work. If you have a child who is studing American history, please buy these books for your child. Even better, if you have children who have not been completely indoctrinated with the brand of history that's being taught in today's public school systems, buy these books for them! Read them yourself. They're even entertaining enough that you could read them out loud to your older elementary school age children.

This is the most refreshing and enjoyable historical work I have read in a very long time. While not glossing over the darker episodes in our nation's history, Bennett clearly believes that there is much about America that is worth remembering, and cherishing. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to Volume I:

"I wrote this book for many reasons. The first and most important is the need for hope. When President Lincoln wrote to Congress in December, 1862, shortly after he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, he wrote, 'We shall nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope of earth.' For nearly a century before that message - and easily for a century afterward - Americans would not have doubted that this country was indeed that last best hope...I believe America is still that hope, but I also believe that our conviction about American greatness and purpose is not as strong today. Newspaper columns and television reports are full of cynicism. Many express doubts about American motives on the world stage. Some Americans seem ready to believe the worst about our leaders and our country. Thinking and believing the worst certainly is not hopeful. It is my humble wish that those who read this book will find reason to reclaim some of the hope and conviction we have lost."

Later in the introduction, Bennett quotes from Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address, delivered as he was leaving office:

"There is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

"An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over thirty-five or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

"But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't institutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs [protection].

"So we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion, but what's important - why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those thirty seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the fortieth anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, 'We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.' Well, let's help her keep her word.

"If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual."

I'm sorry to say it, but things haven't gotten much better in the almost 20 years since Reagan spoke those words. In fact, they've arguably gotten much worse. There is an erosion of the American spirit, and it is being driven by popular culture, by school systems whose curricula are driven by what's fashionable and politically correct, by news broadcasts anchored by individuals who worry out loud about whether it's inappropriate to wear a flag lapel pin and feel that their credibility would be compromised if they were perceived to actually be rooting for their own country. All things considered, in a way I'm glad that a true patriot like Ronald Reagan didn't live to see the likes of Fahrenheit 911.

William Bennett has done a marvelous job of telling us what's important in the sweep of American history, and managed to make it interesting and entertaining in the process. Please. Read these books.

Short Attention Span Theater - Part III

Greetings from the Left Coast! As you know, Short Attention Span Theater focuses on those items that Democrats really hope the American People have forgotten about. We here at LeftCoastBlues feel it is our patriotic duty to remind you of them.

I heard an interesting item on the radio this morning. Apparently Sandy Berger is now an "informal, unpaid advisor" to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The campaign has stated that he "has no official role," but he has "valuable and welcome input that he is providing voluntarily." Reports are that the arrangement is similar to the one Berger had with John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign. You may not remember this, but Kerry severed ties with Berger when Berger was inconveniently caught stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives.

I don't want to take up a lot of room here describing the case. Internet search engines are wonderful things, and if you simply put in "Sandy Berger" + "National Archives" (I even did it for you) you'll find a wealth of information. Bottom line: In 2003, he stole highly secret documents from the National Archives - documents that were classified at what is known as "code word" level. That's one of the highest levels of secrecy we have. People who are authorized to remove those documents from the secure room in which they are kept have to do it in a locked case handcuffed to his or her wrist. (Yes, they actually do that - it's not just something you see in the movies.)

Berger not only took the documents, he admitted to destroying some of them. He also smuggled out his own handwritten notes that were supposed to have been examined and cleared before he could take them. Then he lied about the whole thing as long as he could. Finally, in 2005, he pleaded guilty to a single count of "unauthorized removal and retention of classifed material." He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Oh, and he lost his security clearance for three years. Yep, three years. As near as I can tell, that means that sometime in 2008, a man who stole highly classified documents from the National Archives will actually be eligible to get his security clearance back. What a great country, huh?

Now he's advising the Clinton campaign. Perhaps he's advising them on how double-standards work in Washington. I recall another legal case recently in which Scooter Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying to investigators in the investigation over the alleged "outing" of Valerie Plame. The Democrats and the media spun that case for all they were worth to try to build the perception that Libby, working on behalf of people higher up in the Bush administration, had "outed" Plame in retaliation for her husband's criticism of pre-war intelligence. But the fact is that very early on in the investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was actually the first to leak Plame's name to the media - but Fitzgerald continued to pursue other people until he finally caught Libby in what is known in the legal biz as a "process crime." The court never determined - or even allowed any evidence - about whether Libby had actually violated the Intelligence Identites Protection Act, which prohibits revealing the identities of secret agents. Personally, I'm still scratching my head over (1) why Fitzgerald never brought any charges against Armitage, who actually committed the act that the whole investigation was supposed to be about, and (2) why Fitzgerald kept the investigation going when he already knew whodunit.

Scooter Libby: 2 1/2 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for what could have simply been a bad memory about who said what to whom and when, when the prosecutor already knew that he wasn't guilty of the crime the investigation was allegedly about. Sandy Berger: two years probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $50,000 fine for stealing and destroying highly classified documents from the National Archives. Somehow that doesn't add up to me.

The documents in question, by the way, were the "after action" reports on the thwarting of the "millennium bombing" plot of 1999/2000 - reports which some have claimed are highly critical of the counterterrorism efforts of the administration that at the time was being run by the husband of the candidate Sandy Berger is now advising. Heck, maybe he does have some valuable and welcome input, along the lines of, "Here's how not to do it, Mrs. Clinton."

I think there is a lesson to be learned here, though (besides the obvious one, I mean): If you're ever questioned under oath about exactly when you said or did something, regardless of how confident you are in your memory, the correct answer is, "I don't recall, counselor." Thanks for listening.