Where The Sun Doesn't Shine

I just completed two airline trips in the past three months. The first was a trip to Europe two days after the British captured the terrorists this past August and the second was a quick business trip from Salt Lake to Denver. As we negotiated our way through the various security measures set up to "protect" us from further terrorist activities, I was reminded of a recent article by Ann Coulter in Human Watch.

Terrorists Win: Deodorant Banned From Airplanes

by Ann Coulter
Posted Aug 16, 2006

Last week marked the first official admission that everything government airport screeners have been doing until now is completely pointless -- unless you're an airport security guard with a thing for women's undergarments, in which case it's been highly effective.

As we now know, all the ingredients necessary to blow up an airplane can be carried in small liquid containers. Airport security has not even been looking for small liquid containers. Judging from my personal experience, they seem to have been focusing on finding explosive devices inside women's brassieres.

After five years of submissively complying with bag checks, shoe checks and underwire bra checks, Americans have now been informed that the hell we've been going through at the airports (but which the president and members of Congress do not go through because they refuse to fly commercial air) has been a useless Kabuki theater.

The procedures that have wasted millions of hours of time cannot keep the most basic bomb materials off an airplane. This is like locking your windows to prevent burglaries, while leaving the front door wide open.

Airport security has been using metal detectors to confiscate sharp objects that could be turned into make-shift weapons, which could then be used by terrorists to commandeer control of a plane and fly it into a building.

Except the terrorists can't do that because we've seen that trick before.

But her closing comments were the most illuminating to me.

What stopped last week's terrorist attack was ethnic profiling. . .

Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead.

Airplanes, ports, bridges, subways and shopping malls cannot ever be sanitized against every type of attack that can be dreamed up by fanatics engaged in asymmetrical warfare. We have to target the fanatics themselves. Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.

I was horrified to realise, that the next most humiliating thing the terrorists can do, is to concoct a plan to attempt to smuggle weapons or explosives on to airliners hidden in a human body cavity. It doesn't even have to work. Once their attack is discovered and thwarted by our effective ethnic profiling monitoring, cavity searches would become manditory on any flight to the United States.

Osama Bin Laden would howl with delight to realise that it was no longer a figure of speech when he says we can take democracy and shove it . . .

Who's To Blame, The Cat or The Meat?

An article appeared in Human Watch:

Unveiled Women and 'Uncovered Meat'

by Robert Spencer
Posted Nov 02, 2006

It begs some very interesting questions. The gist of the story quotes two Muslim clerics that claim any woman that ventures out of her home without a hijab or covering, are inviting men to rape them. One of the clerics is quoted as defending this philosophy with the following example:

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat'’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster… If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she'’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don'’t happen."

This prompts another metaphor:

"If I walk down the street with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets and someone comes up to me, knocks me down and takes them all, who is at fault? Me for wearing $100 bills or the thief for accosting me?"

It is a childish, irresponsible attitude to claim that "the devil made me do it." Are Muslim men so lacking in self-control or discipline that the sight of a woman's face or hair changes them in to raving, maniacal, sex-obsessed predators who are no longer accountable for their actions?

Photo courtesy of:
http://community.petpalstv.com/profiles/blogs/i-have-3-cats-who-are-all-diabetic-what-is-this-about

Mr. Gorbachev, There Is One Major Difference

In a speech in Midland, Texas, given by Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, he said:

"You remember President Reagan standing in Berlin and saying, 'This wall should be torn down,'. . . Now the United States seems to be building almost the Wall of China between itself and this other nation with which it has been associated for many decades and has had cooperation and interaction with."

The Berlin Wall was built to keep the legal German citizens from leaving the tyranny of the Soviets while the wall in Texas is designed to keep illegal aliens from sneaking in and destroying the country we have.

What would you have done if 500,000 people from India stole across the border into the Soviet Union each year and sent 3/4 of what they earned back to India? Then, after 10 million of them were living in the USSR, and you tried to control their flow, they marched, protested and declared that they would continue to inflitrate your country until they had made it into an extention of India?

Would you have politely said,

"I think what is really needed are ideas and proposals about how to improve that cooperation and work out all of those issues regarding immigration flows."

or would you have sent them to Greenland or Siberia?

I guess my dad was right, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Maybe The Pope Was Right

Last week in a speech in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a little-known medieval text recording debates between a Byzantine emperor and an educated Persian. The Pope recalled that the emperor had told his adversary: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pope acknowledged the "startling brusqueness" of these remarks, but went on to express his view that "spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable".

Now, the Islamic world has erupted in anger, again. There have been demonstrations demanding his replacement, clerics have demanded his death, a hit-man imprisoned in Turkey has warned of his assassination if he visits Turkey, five churches in Palestine were attacked and a nun was shot in Somalia by gunmen. It is just like the aftermath of the Danish cartoons that made fun of the Prophet, or Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses that vilified Mohammed. Anger, outrage and violence were followed by death threats. Hmmm…what do we learn here?

Maybe the Pope was Right?

Our Bi-Polar Foreign Policy

In discussing the current state affairs in the world, my oldest son, Aaron, mentioned that the major cause of the distress we encounter world wide is a result of our “bi-polar foreign policy. Every eight years we completely flip-flop our policies, cancel long-term commitments and created a whole new batch of enemies.” As I pondered his remark, I was struck with the succinct nature of his comment.

In the 1950’s, we secretly sponsored, funded and encouraged Ho Chi Mien to rise up against the French in Indo-China. We thought that the French would just roll over and let go of this colony and we would have a solid friend in Southeast Asia. Much to our surprise, the French not only refused to allow Vietnam independence, but they asked for our help to quell the rebellion. So, we dropped Ho Chi Mien like a hot potato and supported the French. In his anger over our betrayal, he went to Communist China and asked for their help. They were more that happy to supply support and assistance. Thus began a decade and a half of the most decisive conflict the U.S. had experienced since the Civil War.

In the 1980’s when Russia invaded Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden formed an underground resistance to counter this move. Because the Cold War was still in full swing, we took the opportunity to support and encourage him to drive out the Russians. We covertly supplied and trained him and his forces, but when the reality of victory faded, we left him high and dry, and he hasn’t forgotten. His hatred at our betrayal has continued for another decade and a half with no light at the end of this tunnel

As a ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein was no friend of ours when he rose to power in the early 1980’s, but as soon as he declared war on Iran, he became our ally. Iran infuriated us in the 1970's when the religious Ayatollah rose up against the Shaw of Iran and took control of the country. We were branded as decadent and evil in the eyes of Islam. American hostages were taken and held for years. Not only were we powerless to resolve the situation diplomatically, but our covert military operation sent in to rescue the hostages, crashed in the desert and a second team had to be sent in to rescue the first. Because of our history with Iran, we supplied Saddam with arms and expertise in an effort to defeat Iran. Then, when we lead Saddam to believe that we might turn a blind eye if he attacked Kuwait, we turned around and trounced him when he did.

This perpetual policy of bait and switch has been the bane of most of our international ills. Had we been better at choosing our friends, and supported them through their trials, we would be much better off today. We have felt that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but when conditions change, the definition of enemy changed along with our support and allegiance.

Our standard should read: The United States of America will support and uphold any government and/or people that foster the principles of human dignity, individual security, personal property ownership, freedom of expression and economic stability.

Why should we spend billions of dollars to sustain the economies of those who support regimes and principles that run counter to the values that made us great? Or to replace enemy leaders with others that are just as bad for their counties, but give lip service to America? If our aid was reserved for only those countries that adhered to such principles, because we are actually the only bank in town, dictators and totalitarians around the world would modify their practices to qualify for the aid they need to survive. China and Russia have enough economic problems of their own that they could not continue to feed the rest of the world.

It may not be right to prohibit private economic ventures and trade to continue with such countries, but we have no obligation to give tax dollars in aid or grants to support governments that thwart our goals. We would still have the choice to intervene if lives were at state, but it would be a choice, not an obligation and our funding could be channeled through third party entities such as the United Nations, UNICEF or The Red Cross.

When we set standards that coincide with our values and adhere to them as we expect others to do, we will have others throughout the world support us and rally around us. If we don’t, then the next election will be the time to solidify another enemy.

Why Don’t We Believe The Terrorists?

I have been trying to understand why so many people don’t believe the terrorists? Or is it that they believe them but don’t know what to do about it? Maybe they just don’t know how you deal with a bully?

We have Islamic extremists all around the world predicting dire and devastating consequences if the Western, Christian world doesn’t accept and embrace Allah and Islam as the perfect society. Their method of proselytizing is terror, death and destruction until we acquiesce to their request. And these are people that have shown that they can convince others to die to promote this ideology. Rather than following the advice of General George Patten and allowing them the opportunity to die for their beliefs, many people are claiming that we need to not fight them but give diplomacy a chance.

When Iran says that Israel will be annihilated and Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah agree to help, why do are we critical of Israel for preventing it? In an interview with Haaretz Magazine, Prime Minister Tony Blair from Great Britain responded to the question:

Regarding Iran, do you agree with the comparisons to the 1930s that we often read about?

Mr. Blair:
When you have the President of a country as powerful as Iran say those things, it may be very foolish of us to assume he doesn't mean them. And when he's also trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, then I think the warning signs are pretty clear... I think for a president of a country to say they want to wipe another country off the face of the earth and at the same time he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability - if we don't get worried about that, future historians will raise a few questions about us and about our judgment.

The sad truth is that diplomacy, discussion and compromise only work when both parties want to agree. When either or both parties are determined to get what they want and not give an inch to the other, no amount of talking will change the situation. That is exactly the course that Hitler took in his conquest of Europe. He would take a country, raise the ire of the world and then say that it was all he wanted and he would take no more. A short time later, he would do the same trick again.

We had exactly the same situation occur in Bosnia and Croatia with Slobodan Milosevic. He had no intention of discussing any of the United Nations resolutions until he had accomplished his objectives. When he reached a goal, he would then agree to discuss a cease fire. He would drag the discussions out until he was ready to advance his next agenda, walk away from the table and begin his next offensive. And the world waited while he massacred nearly 200,000 people.

Saddam Hussein put off the United Nations for 10 years, not defying their demands, just not following them. In spite of all the mis-information regarding weapons of mass destruction and how imminent a threat Iraq was to the United States, there was an interesting development that occurred with in the months after our invasion that has been overlooked. Within six months, the Irish Republican Army called a cease fire and disarmed, Libya offered to allow the UN in to inspect their nuclear program and Iran also agreed to discuss their nuclear program. These entities had defied the world for more than 20 years. They saw that the US would do more than cry foul and pout on the sidelines. They realized that they could be next.

Iran reversed its position when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came into power and he saw the quandary we faced with the lack of support at home over the Iraqi war. Now he feels that he can do anything he wants because we wouldn’t dare take on another problem and there is no one else capable of stopping him.

What do we do now? Our position of strength has been eroded at home and our media has convinced the world that we are the source of all their problems. What do we do when Muslims around the world chant, “Death to America” and plot activities to realize it? People complain about the 45,000 Iraqis and 2500 Americans that have been killed in the 3 1/2 years of this war, that’s about 12,000 per year, but forget that under Saddam, 15,000 – 20,000 Iraqis were killed every year for 25 years. And those Iraqis who have been killed the past two years have been killed by the insurgents, not the US.

What we need to do is decide if we can sleep in our warm beds with full stomachs and not fear that the police or army will bust down our door and haul us off to be tortured or killed, while millions of people all around the world live with these fears every day as their leaders skim billions of dollars from the aid we send to pad their own retirement funds.

No one wants to be the world police. But, by a raise of hands, who wants to see the atrocities around the world continue? We need to show the millions of good people in Iraq that the few thousand insurgents can be defeated if they stand up and help us stamp them out. Then we must stay the course and see that it happens for if we leave before the job is done, democracy may never recover from the aftermath.

Immigration: a mutilated concept

There are three basic groups of people that come to America:

1. Those who want to become a part of this country and enjoy the benefits of living here.
2. Those who want to learn and earn as much can they can and take it back to their native land.
3. Those who sneak into the country for one of the first two reasons.

The first group is always welcome here. They are the immigrants that wade through bureaucracy and red tape to eventually earn the right to move here, find work and become productive citizens. They leave a legacy and posterity that are proud to promote the concepts of self-government, private ownership and personal responsibility. I have friends from all over the world, Argentina, Brazil, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mexico and the Philippines to name just a few. They came, worked and realized the American Dream of owning their own home, providing for their families and controlling their own destiny. Some of their descendents have even married my children and are now part of my immigration legacy.

The second group is also welcome. They typically come from underdeveloped countries to attend college and work for 5 to 10 years. Then, when they have mastered their professions, they return to their mother land and bless the lives of countless brothers and sisters with the knowledge they gained. They become pillars in their communities and teach the principles of hard work and self-government.

The third group is creating a lot of controversy today. I know and have worked with many of them and agree with those who say that most of them are a contributing part of our economy and that life would be different with out them. But as true as these statements are, everyone seems to overlook the fact that they have broken laws that were implemented to protect they very people they want to become. I worry when left leaning activists want to grand amnesty or absolution to 9,000,000 to 11,000,000 illegal aliens who broke the law to come here. What part of illegal alien do they not understand? Do these supporters have the same flagrant disregard for law and order?

A recent report cited that 10% of the population of Mexico lives in the United States. These are not Mexicans that have become American Citizens, these are Mexican Citizens that intend to stay and vote for the changes needed to keep them here. This is no different than allowing Guatemala or Argentina to vote on a referendum as to whether or not they can immigrate to this country and not be prosecuted once they do.

I worked with a man who embezzled $150,000 from the small business we work for over a two year period. When he was caught, his father-in-law offered to pay back the entire amount if no charges were pressed. His reasoning was thus: What would be accomplished if the man was sent to prison and his family had no one to support them? The answer is simple: He would learn that actions have consequences, his children would learn that actions have consequences and his next employer would probably not loose hundreds of thousands of dollars. The father-in-law could use that same $150,000 to support his daughter’s family until her derelict husband had paid his debt to society and hopefully learned his lesson.

What happened? The charges were dropped, the money was paid and an unrepentant felon was released back into society to prey on some other unknowing business owner. (I hope he gets a job with the ACLU, Barbara Streisand or Michael Moore.)

Most of my ancestors came to America between 1640 and 1750. They came from England, Scotland, France and Germany to Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Georgia to start a new life in a new land. They held no allegiance to their old country, the lands that had abused and mistreated them. They had to swear allegiance to the King of England as they disembarked from the boat, but when the tyranny of the King and his disregard for law became intolerable, my relatives rose up in revolt and helped to start this country where the rule of law would prevail and the American Dream was available to all who would work for it.

Our borders should be open to all who would embrace this philosophy and closed to those who want to make this country just like the one they left.

Hollywood Can Now Dictate What You Watch

Hollywood has fought forever against the government censuring or dictating what they could say, but the tables have turned and Hollywood can now dictate what we watch.

A sad commentary emerged from the Denver Federal Courts on July 7, 2005. In an Associated Press story entitled Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch said that

". . .editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights."

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection." (Italics added)

I don’t know what planet this judge just arrived from, but he hasn’t been playing in my sandbox lately. Generally speaking, the public doesn’t care whether or not the “creative artistic expression” of film makers is injured or nurtured. They are only interested in the final outcome, and according to the decline in theater attendance over the past few years; the public is disappointed, if not nauseated, with the current trend of films.

The only people in this country concerned about piracy and intellectual protection are those who produce works worth pirating. The position of the Studios can not actually be about preserving the artistry of their work or the purity of their presentation. The fight really boils down to two points, ownership and Hollywood's hypocrisy.

Ownership
Several years ago there was a great deal of consternation among many of the directors of the early black and white films when Ted Turner began to colorize their films. The lighting and filming techniques differ so much from black and white to color, that many of the effects done specifically in the original films were ruined when change to color. Turner’s trump card in this situation was that he owned the films. This allowed him to modify them without permission and in spite of the objections of the creators. His objective was to make them more appealing to his current, color friendly audience and thereby reap a much larger revenue.

Ownership is the key to the editing done by CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms. To have access to any of the “sanitized films,” a person must purchase a membership and become a member of the co-op that actually purchases copies of the film. (This is the very same method used by Private Clubs to restrict membership and circumvented discrimination laws.) As an owner, you have the right to modify the film any way you choose, because it is yours. You can rent or purchase these films from the organization, depending on your preference.

I personally have been a member of two different co-ops, and as a result have chosen to view several dozen sanitized R-rated films. Were it not for this program, I would not have watched or purchased any of these movies and the writers, directors and producers would not have earned the royalties they received. I even own a copy of the first generation of edited videos of Titanic.

The point that the film makers are ignoring is that once they offer their work for sale, the film or DVD no longer belongs to them. It is true that they own the intellectual property and it is wrong for someone else to profit from their work without the creator receiving compensation, but if I buy the Mono Lisa and spray paint a mustache and horns on her, no one has a legal position to prevent me.

Hypocrisy
The final point to be made is the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs. A quick example to illustrate:

James Cameron is one of the most successful and popular writers/directors/producers of our time. He is a creative, skilled and talented individual. He has directed and/or produced over a dozen theatrical releases, of which all but 2 or 3 have been R-rated. The R-rated films include: True Lies, Terminator2, Aliens, The Terminator, Piranha II, Strange Days & Point Break. Titanic was PG-13, but I don't know why.

Cameron was the initial victim of the sanitizing movement when Titanic became the first film to be edited and shown at the Towne Cinema, a small dollar theater in American Fork, Utah in 1998. Shortly there after, Sunrise Video, also in American Fork, began to edit and sell copies of the video. These were not bootlegged, but legitimately purchased copies that were edited and sold as edited copies. Neither Cameron nor 20^th Century Fox lost a dime, but actually made a lot more money than they would otherwise have done. In spite of this, Cameron was very vocal in his condemnation of the practice and nearly cried over the artistic damage done to his movie. Keep in mind that the only things deleted were the naked poses of Kate Winslet. Nothing was changed, only deleted.

According to my brief understanding of the law in these matters, the plaintiffs must show damage or a loss from the action of the defendents. There was no monetary loss, but increased revenue because of these acts. Their product was not damaged, because it was my video tape that was edited, not their master tapes. The fact that I can't see part of the film now is no different than if I looked away or fast forwarded through the objectionable portion.

It appears as though Judge Richard P. Matsch's ruling was not based on the law, but on his own personal beliefs. Bad form for a federal judge.

And now for the hypocracy. If Cameron was sincere about the purity of his films and dedicated to the dream that every person in the world had a right to see his vision as pristine as he created it, why did he allow nearly all of his R-rated films to be sanitized by the television networks and shown in their edited versions on national TV?

When all is said and done, it appears that art yields up its purity to greed and hypocrisy.

An Unconvincing Truth, or Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story

For years we have been entertained by movies that were “based on a true story,” or “inspired by real events.” An in-depth analysis usually reveals that other than the title and a couple of main characters, the original story and the finished movie share very little. Dramatic elements, suspense, intrigue and some sex are usually added to make the production more appealing to a larger audience. While the show may be very successful as a movie in terms of income, informed patrons are heard to mutter as they leave, “that director never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.”

As more and more discussion about Hollywood Al’s movie, “An Unconvincing Truth,” (Oh, I’m sorry,) “An Inconvenient Truth,” reaches the public, the hard facts that are presented there are beginning to thaw faster than the polar ice cap.

(We will skip over the trite retorts given to skeptics that if they don’t believe, they are obviously stupid and move on to some more concrete evidence.)

The Associated Press (AP) released an article on June 27 entitled:

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

Some of the quotes include:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. . .”

“. . . But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Although the AP gave Gore high marks, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement the same day chastising the AP for lack of full disclosure and pointed out some troubling relationships with those supporting the Gore film.

AP Incorrectly Claims Dcientists Praise Gore's Movie

June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones....

First I was homophobic, now I'm xenophobic and I expect soon to be labeled climaphobic.

For those who may not be aware, these words are broken down at Dictionary.com as follows:

Homo is defined as:
-Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

Xeno comes from the Latin word xenos:
-A stranger or foreigner.

Clima is the root of climate:
-The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Phobic is someone who has a phobia. A phobia is described as:
- A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
- A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

It has been the practice of liberal pundits to label opponents that can't be silenced, with an SAT word they calculate their critics can't comprehend. The assumption is made that any rational educated individual will agree with their hypothesis, regardless of its veracity or logic. All other dissidents can be lumped into homogeneous groups with maligning connotations and summarily dismissed.

When I didn't agree with the deviant philosophy of homosexuality, I was considered a homophobic. If this designation is said with a sarcastic twist, it makes one feel as though they are infected with a most repugnant malady. Nevertheless, attaching a moniker, even a noxious sounding one, does not change the facts of any disagreement; even if I agree to disagree.

Presently, those who are in favor of giving amnesty to millions of individuals who have broken the laws of our country by entering illegally. They are taunting those who would extradite these aliens back to their country of origin, as mean-spirited and xenophobic. Whether or not I am uncomfortable with strangers or foreigners I can’t communicate with has nothing to do with the economic damage imposed on our country from healthcare to social security by the blatant breaking of the law. If the law is wrong, it needs to be changed, but until then, it needs to be obeyed. Even parking tickets need to be paid, if not, why have a law?

As this neurotic behavior continues among the emotionally charged, but factually challenged; because of my disbelief in the ‘theory’ of global warming, I expect very soon to be labeled a climaphobe, a label I will wear nobly until science, not the technophobes change my views.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

The political practice of siccinctly placed sound bites to support their position has again been implemented by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. In his efforts to smear President Bush and publish his opposition to the war in Iraq, he has lashed out at the American Soldier.

Like an insurgent sniper, he continues to take pot shots at the GIs to support his convictions.

In a story by ABC News, he is reported to have said the following:

Rep. Murtha Says Fallout From Killing of Iraqi Civilians Will Turn Out Worse Than Prison Scandal

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL

WASHINGTON May 28, 2006 (AP)

...The shootings last November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, were covered up, said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

"Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" Murtha said on "This Week" on ABC. "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command."

Murtha said high-level reports he received indicated that no one fired upon the Marines or that there was any military action against the U.S. forces after the initial explosion. Yet the deaths were not seriously investigated until March because an early probe was stifled within days of the incident, he said.

"I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened," Murtha said. "This investigation should have been over two or three weeks afterward and it should have been made public and people should have been held responsible for it."

A retort to his comments from a Marine also appeared in the Washington Post

Mr. Murtha's Rush to Judgment

Sunday, May 28, 2006; B06

A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].

So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report.

Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes.

Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive.

ILARIO PANTANO

Jacksonville, N.C.

Mr. Pantano's comments are food for thought for all politicians and reporters who try and convict through the media. This type of blatant accusation should be considered slanderous and libel if presented before convictions have been reached. If such blowhards were thus held accountable for their actions, there would be less heartbreak and sorrow among the falsely accused and the guilty will eventually receive their just rewards.

The legal presumption of innocent until proven guilty seems to have take a holiday the past few years.

What's a Voter to Do?

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La has been revealed as another blight spot on Capital Hill. He has risen to infamy following the reports from an FBI sting operation that videotaped him receiving over $100,000 in cash to be used as bribes; as well as audio tapes where he describe measure to funnel other money through his children to him for future bribes.

Filing: Tape Shows Lawmaker Taking Money
May 21 4:35 PM US/Eastern

By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer…

The affidavit says Jefferson is caught on videotape at the Ritz-Carlton as he takes a reddish-brown briefcase from the trunk of the informant's car, slips it into a cloth bag, puts the bag into his 1990 Lincoln Town Car and drives away. The $100 bills in the suitcase had the same serial numbers as those found in Jefferson's freezer…

Jefferson assured the FBI informant in their coded conversations that he paid the money to the Nigerian official, even though the money was still in Jefferson's possession when agents searched his home Aug. 3.

On Aug. 1, two days after Jefferson picked up the $100,000, the informant called Jefferson to ask about the status of "the package."

Jefferson responded: "I gave him the African art that you gave me and he was very pleased."

I hope you caught the fact that even though he was given the money to pay a bribe to a Nigerian official, he lied to the FBI informant and kept nearly all the money for himself.

This is the same Rep. William Jefferson, D-La that we read about last September after Katrina hit New Orleans. I found this blog by Jonathan Tasini that refers to the news reports at that time.

More Ethical Problems for Rep. Jefferson

… Seems like Rep. William Jefferson has even more ethical problems. As I reported before, Jefferson is under FBI investigation.

Now comes a new report that might indicate a pattern: CNN's John Mercurio's The Morning Grind reports on a Roll Call story that says "Rep. William Jefferson, under investigation by the FBI, went on the defensive Wednesday in the wake of a damaging ABC News report that the Congressman allegedly used National Guard resources to gather personal belongings from his New Orleans home amid the Hurricane Katrina rescue operation...."

Here was the ABC News summary: Sept. 13, 2005 — Amid the chaos and confusion that engulfed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, a local congressman used National Guard troops to check on his property and rescue his personal belongings — even while New Orleans residents were trying to get rescued from rooftops, ABC News has learned. On Friday, Sept. 2 — five days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast — Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans and is a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was allowed through the military blockades set up around the city to reach the Superdome, where thousands of evacuees had been taken. Military sources tells ABC News that Jefferson, an eight-term Democratic congressman, asked the National Guard that night to take him on a tour of the flooded portions of his congressional district. A 5-ton military truck and a half dozen military police were dispatched. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News that during the tour, Jefferson asked that the truck take him to his home on Marengo Street, in the affluent uptown neighborhood in his congressional district. According to Schneider, this was not part of Jefferson's initial request."

There is more on Rep Jefferson and other questionable Congress members at http://www.beyonddelay.org/index.php, a site dedicated to exposing legislative ethics violations.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La

Five days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, on September 2, 2005, Rep. Jefferson allegedly used National Guard troops to check in on his home and collect a few belongings – a laptop computer, three suitcases, and a large box. Military sources told ABC News that Rep. Jefferson asked the National Guard to take him on a tour of the flooded portion of his congressional district. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard said that during the course of the tour, Rep. Jefferson asked that the truck stop at the Congressman's home. The Congressman entered his house and collected his belongings, returning to the truck, which was now stuck in the mud. The National Guard ultimately sent a second truck to rescue the first truck and Rep. Jefferson and his belongings were returned to the Superdome.

Questions, questions, questions….

What was in the ‘laptop computer, three suitcases, and a large box’ that was more important than the lives of his constituents who were still perched on rooftops, without food or water?

Was it more money from the freezer?

Cryptic correspondence with undercover FBI informants?

How does a person serve for 16 years in the House of Representatives and become embroiled in such a blatant criminal investigation?

Was he just born that way?

Is it because after 16 years, graft, corruption and elitism have become a way of life?

Or is Jefferson a poster child for term limits?

Wanted: Real Leaders

The following is a letter I wrote to Joe Klien from Time Magazine regarding his article entitled:

Pssst! Who's behind the decline of politics? [Consultants.]

Dear Mr. Klien,

I was very impressed by the above mentioned article you wrote. I have reached the same conclusion over the past several years. It actually began with Rush Limbaugh in his early days. I listened fairly regularly back then and one day realized that the reason so many people devoutly followed him was because he lead. He articulated his views with passion, eloquence and was unfazed by those who opposed him. Whether you liked him or not, you knew where he stood.

These are the very traits you identified that the people of the United States seek when electing leaders. I voted for President Bush both times because even though I didn't always agree with every thing he did, I definately knew where he stood. I wanted a leader, not a poll puppet. I wanted a man that believed in God as I did. I wanted someone with personal conviction and passion.

Political tactics today consist of discrediting your opponent's beliefs while keeping your beliefs fluid enough to move freely to what ever the safe topic of the day might be. Hillary Clinton has mastered this maneuver. Say what ever your audience believes, whether you believe it or not.

I agree with your prediction for the 2008 Presidental election that:

The winner will be the candidate who comes closest to this model: a politician who refuses to be a "performer," at least in the current sense. Who speaks but doesn't orate. Who never holds a press conference on or in front of an aircraft carrier. Who doesn't assume the public is stupid or uncaring. Who believes in at least one major idea, or program, that has less than 40% support in the polls. Who can tell a joke—at his or her own expense, if possible. Who gets angry, within reason; gets weepy, within reason ... but only if those emotions are real and rare. Who isn't averse to kicking his or her opponent in the shins but does it gently and cleverly. Who radiates good sense, common decency and calm. Who is not afraid to deliver bad news. Who is not afraid to admit a mistake. And who, above all, abides by the motto that graced Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Oval Office: let unconquerable gladness dwell.

I hope that there is such a candidate. I will likely vote for them, regardless of their race, gender or party.

Thanks for your insight.

David L. Mefford
david@mefford.org

Does Hillary Clinton Really Understand the Scriptures?

I was amused by the article about a speech given by Hillary Clinton regarding the upcoming immigration reform bill in the Senate.

Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants
By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

I was wondering what Mrs. Clinton was referring to in both of her examples.

First, in the story of Good Samaritan, the traveler was from Samaria, a state within the political boundaries of the Country of Israel. The assumption can be made that because he was a Samaritan, a group of mixed Jewish and Canaanite blood, he was born in Samaria, was a legal citizen of the Country of Israel, and thereby free to wander at will from Galilee in the north to Judea in the south, helping anyone he chose assist. He had not entered from a foreign country illegally, obtained work with fraudulent documentation, and was not sending his wages back to support his family in his country of origin.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the State of Judea in the Country of Israel and except for a short stint in the land of Egypt; the record says he lived the balance of his life in Nazareth of Galilee. He did travel on an annual basis from Nazareth to Jerusalem for the celebration of the Feast of the Passover, but this was a legal trip, one that did not require visas, passports or other authorization.

In light of this information, I am completely at a loss to be able to relate Jesus and the Good Samaritan to the immigration reform bill. The legislation is designed to grant citizenship to 9 - 11 million individuals that entered this country illegally, but found work and have been able to elude the law for more than five years. That is more people than presently live in the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona - combined. It will also remove recent border jumpers and send them back to their country of origin where they would have to apply for entry under the current laws.

How does anyone have the audacity to stand up and say that someone who intentionally broke the laws of this country has a right to be absolved of that crime and not face the consequences they have earned? There are those who state that these immigrants only take the jobs that current legal residents refuse to do. Wrong; they take jobs that legal immigrants would take them if there were not so many illegal immigrants restricting the number of legal immigrants we can allow into the country. They are taking the jobs from those who are obeying the law, not those that are too lazy to work.

Immigration laws are important and necessary in our country. Without them, we would be flooded with new citizens faster than the economy can absorb them. What a remarkable place the United States of America is. It is one of the only countries in the world that has to put up fences to keep people out. The better solution would be to improve the economies of other nations so their citizens wanted to stay home because they had freedom and the opportunity to make a good living. Then immigration would not be an issue.

The immigration laws of this country may be in great need of repair, but as long as they are the law, they must be followed and enforced until changed. If not, we do not have a democracy, but anarchy.

Is that what Hillary Clinton is advocating?

Government Of The People, By The People, For The People

The recent events surrounding the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, and the resulting management of United States sea ports security by an Arab country has eroded a misconception of the United States government.

A vast majority of countries around the world, especially those who don’t like the U. S., think that George Bush owns, controls, and dictates what America does and doesn’t do through out the world. In their eyes, Mr. Bush represents all that they despise about the Western World. Because they haven’t experienced democracy in their own countries, they don’t understand that even though the President directs the largest and most powerful army in the world, he is unable to use it for his own personal pleasure.

In their world, kings, dictators and other totalitarian leaders own everything and everyone. The country exists for the pleasure and gratification of the leader and his supporters. It is easy to see that coming from this perspective, one would perceive that leadership in the United States is no different.

The Dubai Deal, while not done with the direct guidance of the President, was strongly supported by him as his administration’s policies and something that was good for the country. But the backlash from the voters resounded up through the halls of Congress and slapped Mr. Bush soundly in the face. Polls indicated that more than 65% of the country did not want this kind of deal to be made. With the power of this mandate in hand, the Congressional leaders were able to step into the fray and convince the UAE that modifying the deal to drop the US ports would be in their best interests. Without the support of the people, this deal would not work.

There have been those throughout the term of the present administration that have complained that the Republicans have run an agenda counter to the wishes of the American People. It appears obvious now that if the President or Congress chooses a course of action that is counter to the basic feelings and needs of this Country, the People will speak up and dictate what will happen.

President Lincoln would be please to know that nearly 150 years later, the United States of America still possesses a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Brokeback Hypocrites

I have avoided commenting on "Brokeback Mountain" and the controversy surrounding it. There is a very true principle that discussion of an idea, even though it is a wrong idea, can give can it credence, legitimacy and legs. With this risk in mind, I will express a few truths that are overlooked and need exposure.

I have not seen the film and will not. But this is irrelvant, since I am not commenting on the film, but on those who support it. I have read many reviews that were supportive and sympathetic of the themes displayed so my opinions are not based on negative, right-winged conservatives. But there are two disturbing issues that have surfaced from these discussions.

First, drama has proven over the millennia to be a powerful influence on the actions of the human race. Literature has changed the course of nations. It is always a disservice to society when disgusting tales of losers and reprobates are portrayed bigger than life on the silver screen. The precise form of deviant behavior is irrelevant for the damage is still the same. The fabric of society is shredded, not re-enforced. Conversely, those who overcome adversity and challenges rather than wallowing in it, motivate society to improve, perservere and triumph.

The other disturbing element is not the proselytizing of a lifestyle that I personally believe brings damage and unhappiness to all it touches. (It is ironic that the film poignantly supports this very idea.) The problem is the cavalier, in your face, narrow minded, bigot attitude from the film’s supporters. I have worked on stage, in films and I even directed Jake Gyllenhaal’s sister when she was a student in high school. I have worked with straight people, gay people and those who didn’t know what they were. Everyone is trying to find happiness. It is too bad that, as Garth Brooks put it, too many are looking for it in all the wrong places.

It hurts to see how so many of the vocal liberal community ridicule and demean those who do not believe the same way they do. Choosing not to watch a program that is counter to my beliefs is no different than a pro-choice activist choosing not to attend a pro-life rally, or a peace activist refusing to see a film that glorifies war and carnage. Participating in something that offends one’s senses, is not required to be objective or informed. In this country, we have the right to agree to disagree. Making light, ridiculing or harassing an individual for their beliefs is fine as long as you allow them the same opportunity to make you feel like an idiot for the way you believe.

Preserving Your Right to Be Offended

I am continually amazed at the number of people who believe that the Constitution guarantees them the right to not be offended. The First Amendment, by definition, allows me, or you, to say anything; whether it offends someone or not. The only limitation is slander, in that you cannot say something that is untrue if it causes damage or harm to someone else. Actually you can still say it; you just have to be willing to pay for the resulting damages.

This myopic view of self-expression is most pronounced among the religiously challenged, the morally challenged and the sexually challenged. Those who espouse that it is their right to be able to walk down the streets of America and not be offended by any display of religion. Those who want to live by relative truth, depending on what the definition of “is” is at that moment, and don’t want to be accountable to absolute truth. Those who haven’t figured out whether they are male, female or whatever, and don’t want to have their process of exploration dampened by guilt.

Yet even these dissenters all agree that they are a small minority in this country, and as such, are eligible for protection under the Constitution. But this raises a serious contradiction. I have always been taught that democracy, or even a republic, is ruled by the common consent of the majority of the population. This is why elections are determined by a 51% margin. And changes to the rules by which we are governed have to be agreed upon by a 3/5 or 2/3 majority. Where does it say in the Constitution, the Amendments or even the Federalist Papers, that the will of the minority has the ability to supercede the will of the majority?

The only rights we posses in this country are guaranteed to individuals, not groups. We have the rights of expression, security and privacy. We have the right to assemble, choose our leaders and to determine our own destiny. We also have the right to disagree, to demand change and to see those changes realized when the majority agrees with the need for the changes.

With this in mind, why do the majority in this country, the 80% that have declared a religious belief and the 65% who regularly attend or practice their belief, have to hide in back rooms and shuttered meetinghouses? When 80% of the people in this country believe in a Supreme Being, why do the words, “one nation under God” and “in God we trust,” need to be stricken from our society? Why do minorities have the audacity to choose to move into a religious community because they like the environment and want to raise their children there; and then turn around immediately to criticize, demean and demand that the community change to their own personal preferences?

It reminds me of a line from the movie “The Age Of Innocence,” when the male lead is willing to break the arranged engagement to his fiancé to marry another that he really loves. His secret love, refusing to accept his sacrifice, says, “If you did, you would cease to be the very thing I love.”

Don’t they see,... or do they?