baldilocks

Charlie's Wrangles (AskMom)

Amidst all the headscratching over the antics of Representative Charlie Rangel and the case of the all new, bright and shiny round two of the bring-back-the-draft issue, some clear and meaningful words are being spoken.  By Charlie:  (Thanks to HotAir for the video)

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Of course he says this knowing full well it's not true.  Anyone can read the statistics on the composition of our armed forces.  One of those who surely did is Rangel, who is not stupid and seldom poorly informed.  Indeed as a lobbyist I always had the highest respect for his intelligence.  And for his cynicism and hardball practicality.

So what's Charlie up to?

Legislators have many reasons to introduce and publicize bills they never intend to vote on.  They may genuinely believe in a cause, or have crucial constituents or donors who do, and want to get it some air.  They may be a designated water carrier whose own agenda is immaterial. They may introduce a hated concept, hoping to inspire a backlash.  They may be marketing themselves, or doing some informal polling and venue shopping on a particular issue. 

Lobbying 101: You can ask people theoretical questions all day, but putting a bill in the hopper brings out their real feelings in a hurry.

Rob over at Say Anything thinks Rangel and Kerry are looking to provide cover for a pullout from Iraq:

If they can make the troops appear to be nothing more than a bunch of simpletons who were manipulated into fighting a “war for profit” or “war for oil” by the evil Bush/Cheney/Rove cabal they’ve won.

And I do think he's got it partly right.  But let's talk about the elephant in Charlie's living room - the fact that in Rangel's district, substantial numbers of young men may in fact be uneducated and jobless.  That they already have criminal records.  That for them hope exists not as a range of possibilities but simply as the bifurcated extremes - "I'm gonna be a famous rapper/NBA star/nightclub owner someday" at the one end, with  "I'll get a good corner of the hood to deal from" at the other.

Rangel is telling the truth, or part of the truth, at least in the 15th.  Let's not forget that Rangel needs to get himself re-elected every two years.  Of course he tells the folks in Harlem what they want to hear. And of course he tells the insular limousine liberals of the Upper East and West Sides what THEY want to hear; offering excuses for the failures of one slice of his district while blaming the man the other slice all loves to hate.

It doesn't hurt his feelings either; he's feeding his own delusions of being Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson back in the good old feisty days.  As a side dish, he's doing a real service to Kerry, Pelosi and Reid, saying the outrageous things that make them appear more moderate.  He's delivering the payoff frissom to moonbat squads everywhere.  They need to believe the military is composed of exploited poverty-addled unfortunates, and here an unimpeachable black Congressman is saying just that.   

Poverty pimps would be out of business without periodic new recruits into victimhood, denial, blaming and hopelessness.  Rangel and his ilk are the recruiters for the army of the entitled.   From behind his real or manufactured anger on behalf of his poorer constituents, from behind the skirts of the MOMA donors, he takes aim at the mainstream.  Confusion, respect for his hostages and just plain astonishment have held back our return fire.

As an aside, Charlie himself makes our best case right in his quote above. He's right that our military isn't there just for the bonuses and educational benefits.  And he's wrong when he assumes our servicemen fight out of desperation. They are fighting because they believe in America, believe there is a threat against us,  and want to do what they can against that threat.  They believe that their service IS a "decent career" and they resent mightily that Rangel, Kerry, et al don't see it that way.    

Far from not understanding why Rangel is doing what he's doing, I think he's a genius for doing it so blasted well.   It can't be a coincidence that  Bill Clinton's office is in his neighborhood.  The chief spinmeister and triangulator himself could be co-writing Charlie's current wrangle.  Two New Yorkers who know all the angles.  The redeeming feature is that at some point, ham-fisted Pelosi will have to take over.  We can count on her to spoil the script, out of jealousy if nothing else. 

Charlie is a Congressman for life, much like my own Congressman Jim McDermott here in Seattle.  The draft legislation gambit will help Charlie appease his minority constituents, suck more cash from the affluent ones and egg on the moonbats.  He, along with Reid, Pelosi, Kerry and the rest of the usual suspects have made their best case that the war is being fought by fools, losers and tools.  They've served notice on us that the BushCheneyRovians want to bleed minorities to death for fun and profit.  Yawn.

If Charlie is as smart as I think he is, he'll be content with all this. Lobbying 201:  Will his bill mysteriously fail to get scheduled for a hearing?  There will be a test.

 

Threats That Work (AskMom)

Over at the Chicago Tribune there's an article about the kind of threats that work.  Wal-Mart and other bastions of consumerism have decided that "Happy Holidays" is out this year, and "Merry Christmas" is in.   

How did the Wacky Religious Right impose their will on the flinty, bottom-line obsessed giants of secularism?  Threats.  Not of violence but of dollars taken elsewhere.  Apparently when hundreds of thousands of credit card wielding Moms and Dads go on the rampage, even the Great Satan of the American Marketplace trembles.

Just imagine the world we'd have if the "religion of peace" would substitute boycotts and petitions for beheadings and burnings.   It would be like, well, Christmas. 

Thanks to the Brothers Judd.

Thanksgiving: Day of the Birds

You're just like me, you wouldn't dare enlist in the military, you are as afraid of it as I am.

--MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ranting about chickens and "chickenhawks"...

An honest self-assessment, even though it contains projection typical of the person in question.

My gratitude, however, goes to those who weren't afraid and to those who might have been afraid but allowed patriotism and duty to master their fear.

(Thanks to Froggy @ Blackfive)

Darwin Awards Please (AskMom)

The video game bug has never bitten me, although my sons are involved to some very limited extent.  Well, limited for men.  Which means they play for several hours sometimes, when they can get away with it.  My daughters and I, and probably most women, don't even know the names of the current games. 

Still, even allowing for male foolishness and sports/game/competition addiction, the current Playstation3 hysteria (pun intended) seems extreme.  Waiting on line for DAYS? Shootings, stabbings, beatings, robbery, over a video game?

My immediate and brutally practical reaction was to wish that everyone involved could just starve to death waiting, or punch and kick each other into sterility in machismo duels for possession of the machines.  That would be the Darwin part if only, hopefully, these idiots managed to make away with themselves and each other before they reproduce.

Then I reconsidered.  A friend, very highly placed in the military service of a free and prosperous - but I repeat myself - country, believes that some credit for the astonishing performance of today's fighters goes to childhood gaming.  Reflexes, eye-hand coordination, strategic thinking, all that.  Practiced endlessly from very early in life.   

So okay.  Urban warriors, proving their strength, daring and patience on line at Best Buy.  Victors in the eternal contest to get the status goods and impress the girls.  Future defenders of liberty.  Or smart investors looking to trade a day or two of time for a good profit.  If Sony didn't want their machines to become currency in the Christmas loot extortion sweepstakes, they should have made enough to meet the demand. 

Besides, women are not immune to the gottahaveits.  We'll save for months for Manolo Blahniks.  We'd rather have a weekend at La Costa than world peace, if no one knew it was us that sold out.  We lust for expensive food processors when we eat take-out five nights a week.  We insist on four wheel drive SUV's that we know will never leave the pavement.  And the same women who'd rather die than stand on line for a video game will cheat their friends and consort with their enemies if that's what it takes to get junior into the right school. 

Where he'll learn that his life is not worth living without a Playstation3.  Perhaps humanity is doomed, after all.    

4 Carriers in Gulf (Baklava)

Does anybody here ever read Al Jazeera and it's readers comments area? The article has in it:

What asserts the experts’ fears is the fact that on October 31, two nuclear-powered carriers, the USS Eisenhower and USS Enterprise, arrived in Bahrain, accompanied by their carrier strike groups. And on November 9th, the USS Iwo Jima, and the USS Boxer also arrived.

Is President Bush up to something? Asked Rense.com

On October 11, American officials announced that the U.S., Bahrain and other states will hold their first naval exercise in the Gulf to practice interdicting ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

The exercises, organized under the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative and the first to be based in the Gulf near Bahrain

I warn you all not to read the comments area of this article. You'll either roll on the ground laughing (because what can you do but laugh at these people) or get physically sick (because really if you don't laugh this is your body's probable reaction).

Making It 1968 All Over Again

Everyone is talking about Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) expressed intent to call for the reinstitution of the military draft as if it were something new. Back in 2003, however, Rep. Rangel sponsored the Universal National Service Act of 2003 along with thirteen co-sponsors—all Democrats, though certain sectors of the Left were spreading the disinformation that President Bush and/or House/Senate Republicans were the actual draft-planners.

Right before the 2004 presidential election, however, the House Republicans got tired of that particular bit of rumor-mongering and decided to call out their Democrat cohorts. They brought the bill—HR 163 of the 108th Congress—to the floor for a vote and the bill was defeated resoundingly by a 402-2 tally. Neither Rep. Rangel nor any of the co-sponsors voted ‘yea’ and the only two who did so were Pete Stark (D-CA) and, interestingly enough, a then-obscure congressman named John Murtha (D-PA).

Having Rangel vote down his own bill seemed odd at the time (he even sent letters to his fellow House Democrats advising them to vote the bill down), but now it’s quite understandable: he was waiting for a possible moment when his party would have a majority--and, thus, a more favorable image--and that time is now. Perfectly logical.

We can only wait to see whether a new version of the bill—which neither most military nor most civilian citizens want passed—will find itself up for a vote.

(On a personal note, one of my cousins told me back in 2003 that the president was looking to implement the draft. Coincidentally, he ran that by me right after I posted “Drafty Story.” He had been very frightened that his younger son, then a high school senior, would be drafted, but I pointed him to my blog. BTW, much to his father’s chagrin, the son in question joined the Air Force upon his graduation.)

(Thanks to Pajamas Media)

Lying Headlines: Kissinger on Iraq (Tully)

By now you've likely seen the headline.

Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible

Which seems odd, as militarily the war was won many long months ago. But here's what Kissinger actually said:

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp. [bolded for emphasis]

In other words, Kissinger didn't say that a win was impossible. He said that, in his opinion, the US and British electorates won't allow their governments to stay long enough to assist the Iraqi government in finishing the job of stabilizing the country into a peaceful democracy. But is that the impression you'd get from the headline and the article?

My co-blogger at Stubborn Facts, temporary "civilian" Bobby (posting from Iraq) writes:

Being in Iraq, I don't have the luxury to surf the 'Net and read what the anti-war activists are saying about this, but I suspect that they're praising Nixon's most senior statesman for "seeing the light" that they-- in their infinite wisdom-- have always known. But, of course, nothing is ever quite that simple, is it? And I would caution you to read everything he says before jumping to the conclusion that the architect of the Grand Design has already consigned us to failure...

...Put another way, if the US only had the political will to support our European campaign during World War II for, say, twelve to eighteen months, then it would have been entirely accurate if Charles Evans Hughes (Kissinger's rough historical equivalent for that time period) had said: "We can't defeat the Nazis in a time period that political processes of the democracies will support." That's because it actually took about forty-two months to defeat the Nazi regime, and we did defeat the Nazis.

Indeed we did. The actual war in Iraq was won months, even years ago. To be exact it was won in October of last year, when the Iraqi people elected a permanent government under their new constitution. What's going on now is something different, the reconstruction of a battered nation and the stabilization of a nascent democracy, in a region not terribly conducive to democracy. In Germany, it took over four years from the end of the war for a new government to be established. In Japan, it took seven. In both cases, American military assistance continued for many more years.

What Kissinger was saying is that he does not believe that the American electorate has the patience or willingness to help a new democratic nation survive to stability, that we lack the will to do for Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan. And he warns that abandoning Iraq would be the exact wrong thing for us to do.

"A dramatic collapse of Iraq - whatever we think about how the situation was created - would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said.

But is that the impression you'd get from the headline and the article?

Entertainment (Baklava)

Go watch this

or the first one

Building and cooking (Baklava)

Today is Saturday. After a week long of working in a cubicle and doing little else (except for karate with my kids and a parent teacher conference on Thurs for my youngest - she's in the top of her class), I got up today feeling restless and like I had to use my body.

So, I dug, put in two posts with concrete around it, went to Home Depot to buy fence boards and items to make a gate, stained fence boards, and dug some more. Tomorrow I'll be able to assemble the gates to the fence posts (it's a double wide gate) and maybe finish staining the fence boards. I like home improvement for 2 reasons. 1) Makes me feel like a man 2) The sense of accomplishment feels great.

When I got inside at about 7 PM I decided to start making butternut squash soup. Great stuff and really healthy. But it won't be ready until tomorrow. Does anyone have a soup recipe you'd like to share? I have 4 of my own that I make. Maybe someday I'll share how I do them. I make a good split pea, butternut squash, chicken noodle spinach and carront (with tomato sauce also), and Gazpacho soup. My best friend and love of my life before she passed was just able to taste Gazpacho soup for the first time 2 months prior to her passing. She loved it so much she wanted more. We made a bunch together and of course planted more tomato plants together with the hope of using the tomatoes for Gazpacho soup. I suggest everyone try Gazpacho at least once. Do it for her. It might not be once. You might love it and have a bunch more after that. It's a cold spanish soup with tomatoes, peppers, celery, and cucumbers,etc. Very healthy soup. I put in Jalapeno and it makes me feel alive.

Wup. I realized it's late. I have to make phone calls before it's too late. Till next time....

Update: I forgot to mention that I was slightly bummed as I broke my 2 inch thick wood cutting board. How does that happen? Stupidly with a knife embedded into the squash, lifting and then hitting the board. Of course not much happened so I did it again. And the third time something gave way startling me. It was the wood cutting board. :( So now I'm using an old plastic thin one.

I really have to cut it out with the butternut squash. 2 years ago it broke a blender as I was putting it in water in a blender and pureeing it for the butternut squash soup. The motor gave out. My best friend and love of my life got me a new one for my birthday in April of this year. With more POWER! 475 Watts. But I vowed to take better care of this one.

Experts wrong again (Baklava)

Isn't it interesting when experts make grand predictions and then turn out to be wrong? For all of the rhetoric used by the drive-by legacy media, you'd think they'd be apologizing this year for doing so.... What am I talking about?

Hurricanes !

Read the article in the link above. The first paragraph states:

The 2005 Atlantic           hurricane season is the busiest on record and extends the active hurricane           cycle that began in 1995—a trend likely to continue for years           to come. The season included 28 named storms, including 15 hurricanes           in which seven were major (Category 3 or higher).

I just want to point out that there were ZERO hurricanes to hit the U.S. this hurricane season (2006). At least you'd think they might change this article on the NOAA website so they don't look so silly....

Because it goes on!

Another funny statement:

said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad           C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans           and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “I’d like to foretell           that next year will be calmer, but I can’t. Historical trends           say the atmosphere patterns and water temperatures are likely to force           another active season upon us.”

And another one:

Because we are in an active hurricane era, it's important           to recognize that with a greater number of hurricanes comes increasing           odds of one striking land," said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. David           L. Johnson, director of the NOAA National Weather Service.

Oh well. I know these are distinguished gentlemen so I shouldn't kid. I have more of an issue with the drive-by legacy media doing so many hit and run pieces on Republicans/conservatives/Bush last year.

Of course everyone cares about weather, global warming, the future of our planet, and more. Just like the last post where liberals act like they "care" more, and bash conservatives and Republicans as not caring, I plead with you readers to not be persuaded by that kind of rhetoric. Let's just say that 99% of people "care".

Where do we differ? We differ on how we discuss things, the detail and facts we point to and the solutions that we'd like to implement. While conservatives point to the fact that the Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Treaty, the drive-by legacy media blasts Bush for not pushing for the Kyoto Treaty. While liberals would like to see drastic steps taken now (that would harm the economy and hurt our ability to solve our way out of the problem because priorities would shift towards helping needy people), conservatives understand that the stronger our economy is the better chance we have at having technological breakthroughs. There are teams of people all over the place working on all sorts of technologies that would help us with transportation, home energy needs, and efficiency improvements of all sorts.

One of the things I just watched on the science channel (I love energy and technology so I was mesmerized) was buoys that through their up and down movement because of the ocean waves created energy. Mechanical and kinetic energy is easy to convert to electricity. It's done with windmill farms. However with the ocean buoys more energy is present and able to be captured per acre than windmill farms. Renewable energy!!! And cheap !!! And clean !!! The estimates were that 100 square miles of these buoys in the ocean (that's 10 miles by 10 miles) would provide enough energy needs for California. Me being the skeptic, I'd want to see how much one buoy could create and do the math myself because that seems like an awfully high estimate. California uses a whole LOT of energy. But, if the estimate was off by 67% that would mean that a 300 square mile area could serve California (30 mile by 10 mile area). That isn't half bad.

That's renewable energy that is cheaper by a factor of 100 than solar energy, and more constant than wind AND solar and not harmful to species that need our rivers (like damns). The more electricity that could be created the more we solve a bunch of other problems. Currently as I wrote about in a post about Hydrogen last week, 95% of hydrogen is separated in a way that puts out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Electricity could separate hydrogen from oxygen but it is quite expensive to do because electricity prices are fairly high and it costs more in electricity than the amount of hydrogen's energy would give back. The cost benefit isn't there.

Too bad somebody couldn't just start investing in ocean property. We have to somehow get past ocean usage issues....

Who is more 'caring'? (Baklava)

Conservatives are more generous than liberals

BY FRANK BRIEADDY
c.2006               Newhouse News Service                                          

This is a great article about a new book. My comments are in []brackets:
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income [irrespective!].

In the book, to be released later this month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long , liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society [and bashing conservatives as uncaring and mean]. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Months before those words came off the press, news of his research reached the producers of ABC's "20/20." They filmed extensive interviews with Brooks to be aired next month in a one-hour special dealing with charity and philanthropy.

The fact that ABC will focus on the political, rather than cultural, aspects of his book frightens him less than the potential for a call from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' hard-hitting conservative commentator.

"I can say no if I want to," he said.

The truth, Brooks says, is that if an interview with O'Reilly means furthering his message that America needs more charity -- especially from those who call themselves liberal -- he'd probably do it.

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

He has lectured in Spain and Russia and makes about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences around the world.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money [yet all categories of government spending has gone up every year for over 6 decades].

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness [my emphasis] for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated [my emphasis] what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood [my emphasis].

In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements [I guess I'll have to read the book to find out what fault].

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, has not read Brooks' book but is familiar with his research and findings. He says Brooks' impact could be as great as that of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam, who wrote the 2000 best-seller "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," setting off a national discussion about the decline of participation in group activities and its effect on society.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

              To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

              SOME OF BROOKS' FINDINGS

              Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way [my emphasis].

              Charity is good for your health.

              Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

              People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

              Nov. 14, 2006

Poverty (Baklava)

We’ve moved from 14.7% poverty rate in 1966 to a 13.3% poverty rate in 1997 (5th year of Clinton) to a 12.6% poverty rate in 2005 (5th year of Bush).

Trends of poverty are interesting:

In the past, the poverty rate and number of people in poverty have gone up during and slightly after a recession.

Interesting table
Poverty level for 2005 (5th year of Bush) is $15,577 for a family of 3 and  $26,683 for a family of 6

Poverty level for 1997 (5th year of Clinton) is $12,802 for a family of 3 and $21,886 for a family of 6

That means you could be earning $3,000 to $5,000 more in 2005 than 1997 and still be considered to be in poverty, yet the poverty rate in the 5th year of Bush is lower than the 5th year of Clinton.

BTW: Neither Bush nor Clinton control the economy as no president has "control" of the American economy. Otherwise they'd make it strong every year and get reelected. The American economy is complex. It could go into a recession simply because 10% of the people feel that a recession is coming and start spending less. Tax rate increases negatively affect the economy, tax rate decreases positively affect the economy. Spending increases positively affect the economy, spending decreases negatively affect the economy. Interest rates have a role also. Tax rates and spending can remain the same and also there is a business cycle - that is the American people's feelings change economic growth.

Vanity Fair's Trifling Arrogance - Writ Small (AskMom)

Gerard Van der Leun, Editor-In-Chief of Pajamas Media, doesn't like Vanity Fair's James Wolcott very much.  And since Gerard has solid instincts, except for his unfathomable dislike of polar fleece, it's no surprise that Wolcott has gone all medieval on Claudia Rosett's idea of keeping John Bolton at the U.N.

It's hard to know which droplets of his own stupidity to start flicking back at Wolcott first.  His dislike of Rosett, whose intellectual shoelaces he is unfit to tie and whose name he can't even spell?  His disdain for Bolton, who dared NOT to kiss the rear end of the U.N. apparatchiks?  How about Wolcott's simple allergy to fact checking? 

Vanity Fair probably pays Wolcott for his blog.  They, and he, are about as high maintenance and pretentious as it's possible to be in print, full of glossy Hollyweird righteousness and secularist  superiority.  Perfect examples of the old media, which simply can't understand why we don't worship at their thrones of journalistic perfection.

So when Wolcott wanted a small and defenseless blogger to humiliate, he turned to me.  Someone must have sent him a link to my embarrassingly wrong election predictions, and my offer to "hold the shoebox" for the collection to pay Bolton's salary.  Wolcott breezed over to my blog, glanced at the picture of my son at the top, and tapped out a withering critique referring to me as "he".  A perfectly natural mistake, if you're a link-whore and attention hog who posts only pictures of YOURSELF.

(For the record - I can only wish I was the young man in the picture.  My oldest son is, unlike Wolcott, a consummate professional and a wonderful human being.  He's a firefighter who saves lives, not an out-of-shape, overpaid, pandering pontificator.  And he triple checks EVERYTHING he does.)

I've apologized and abased myself for being so wrong about the elections.  I'm waiting to hear from Wolcott, who thought that "AskMom's Album" and "AskMom" were synonymous.  But I suspect my only consolation will be the rhetorical company of other Wolcott rejects; and with the likes of Rosett, Bolton and Van der Leun, that is marvelous consolation indeed.   

Despair is not a method (Baklava)

From Betsy's Page:

Senate critics of our war effort in Iraq got to talk to military leaders in Iraq and didn't seem to hear what they wanted to hear. Hillary Clinton got to try out one of her campaign slogans on General Abizaid and he handed it right back to her.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) took exception with Abizaid's talk of all the steps that the Iraqi government needs to take. "Hope is not a method," she told him. "We've had testimony now for four years about what 'must be done' -- and it doesn't get done."

Abizaid shot back: "I would also say that despair is not a method."

UCLA Study: Who Pollutes? (Baklava)

According to a two year study released Tuesday by UCLA "the film and television industry and associated activities make a larger contribution to air pollution in the five-county Los Angeles region than almost all five other sectors researched"

Although Hollywood seems environmentally conscious thanks to celebrities who lend their names to various causes, the industry created more pollution than individually produced by aerospace manufacturing, apparel, hotels and semiconductor manufacturing, the study found.Only petroleum manufacturing belched more emissions."People talk of 'the industry,' but we don't think of them as an industry," said Mary Nichols, who heads the school's Institute of the Environment, which released what researchers called a "snapshot" of industry pollution. "We think of the creative side, the movie, the people, the actors -- we don't think of what it takes to produce the product."

Seems to me conservation is in order..... we should buy less of their product !Additionally, we need to have government put caps on the amount of product available to the public OR put an additional tax on their product to pay for the environmental damage that they do OR set standards on the amount of all of this that goes on:

Special effects explosions, idling vehicles, teams of workers building monumental sets

I'd say the special tax is appropriate. Make that a double tax for Steven Seagal who gave us all a speech at the end of this movie.

What is your perspective? (Baklava)

The Challenge Results
Good! Seven out of ten answers were correct.
You have a good grip on reality. No need to see a therapist.
GO TAKE THE TEST. It's FREE.... and fun.

HOT AIR VIDEO
Before this video is banned from You Tube, watch it! It is the blogosphere doing the job that journalists fail to do. Topic? Iraq.

This week I've had fun guest blogging for Baldilocks. I don't know how many people view this blog but I hope somebody is enjoying themselves reading what I'm writing or getting something out of it at least. I know that I can't post consistently enough to have my own blog so I'm appreciative of the graciousness of using Baldilock's space.

Things hit me sometimes. Just like when I first brought my daughters to karate a few months ago it dawned me that my girls are learning about life here. They were learning to be aware and to listen. A parent can't instill some things to their kids. Just like a husband or wife can't tell their spouse somethings sometimes. Once that spouse hears something from a third party though they hear it. Kids are that way. It's not out of disrespect. We may love and care for the ones we are around more often but it is human nature to not hear them as thoroughly I suppose because we hear them so much.

As I wrote about earlier, my best friend and love of my life passed away on July 8th. I am so thankful for what she taught me. There wasn't a way to half way listen to her. One of her qualities was that she was intense. It took me more than a year to get used to her intensity. Well... I'd say I never got used to her intensity. She surprised me through the last month. I learned to like it about her. She made life crazy good. She was creative and full of life. I have paintings in my house that she made and I appreciate so much what she has done for me and what I have learned from her. There are other great qualities that she had but I just wanted to talk about this one right now.

Last week, I mentioned that Joey was voted off of Dancing with the Stars. That left two dancers. The results are in. Emmitt Smith WON !! I was talking to a friend on the phone tonight about Dancing with the Stars. Dancing with the Stars stresses her out. The competition and the losing aspect gets to her. But I see it the other way around. Monique, Joey, Mario and Emmitt were all winners for getting as far as they have. They each had the perspective that they have 1) enjoyed themselves 2) learned so much 3) had such a wonderful time 4) were winners already. The finale and finding out who won is a glorious event when the people involved have such great attitudes. It is similar to the attitudes of those on American Idol the last season. Once you get to that top 3 or 4 singers or dancers, the talent is sooo good that any one of them could've won. And what makes them winners is their attitude and the amount of effort they have put into their craft.

It's inspiring. It is why I just cannot understand defeatist rhetoric about Iraq and the talk about pulling our troops out. I've talked about the negligence of the drive-by legacy media. The New York Times gives us this piece today. In it retired genearls (the same ones asking for Rumsfeld to resign) and Kenneth M. Pollack (an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration) are all making the case that "redeployment" of our troops would be the wrong thing to do and in fact what we should do is increase troop levels. Is this what America was led to believe Democrats were going to do? Whatever the case, I hope we finish the job in Iraq. We need to be responsible for removing Iraq's government just like after WW2 we stayed in Japan and Germany for 7 and 10 years to reestablish a new government. I believe redeploying would lead to a humanitarian crisis and that would be the worst option.

Let's try to accept what is is ... that we are in Iraq and then all move towards accomplishing and completing the job in Iraq. Is that something we can all do? There may be differences of opinion on how to finish but redeploying is not finishing.

10 Safest Cities (Baklava)

  Recently, I posted about the 10 most Dangerous Cities and how they all had Democrat mayors and representatives except for one Republican (out of 19 Democrats). So Justin commented, "I'd be curious to see the political make-up of the ten safest cities." I was curious too.

Here are the 10 safest cities. In the list is:  11 Republicans,  8 Democrats and 1 non-partisan.

Here is some helpful information:

The list, according to Morgan Quitno’s website “is based on a city’s rate for six basic crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft. All cities of 75,000+ populations that reported crime data to the FBI for the six crime categories were included in the rankings.”

This year’s survey considered 371 cities, using final 2005 FBI statistics that were released Sept. 18, 2006.

It is interesting to note that the higher the concentration of people, the higher probability the representatives of the population are liberal/Democrat. That is why these lists are helpful. Because you can see that New York City dropped from the most dangerous city list years ago when Rudy Guliani (Repubican) became mayor and that St. Louis is the most dangerous city now and has been represented by Democrats for a long time. Generalizations aren't helpful to some people but I believe it's the philosoply of liberalism versus conservatism that adopted either helps or hurts a city.

Liberalism breeds dependency and conservatism teaches self reliance. We conservatives are not heartless. We understand the need for helping those who can't help themselves like the non-able bodied, elderly or children. We believe it is better to teach a man to fish than give him fish. It is born of love that we have this philosophy. Democrats could do well to engage us in this line of reasoning instead of attacking us as mean spirited or being against the poor. Sure, many Republicans aren't very articulate and may have the philosophy of love but are unable to express ideas well enough or positively enough to persuade Democrats but there are plenty of Republicans and conservatives who have been talking about this philosophy long enough that I do blame Democrats/liberals for not opening their hearts and minds and listening to what we are saying also. These Democrats/liberals/journalists just continue to attack conservatives as uncaring as opposed to looking at the results of their ideas and seeing the poor results of their ideas.

For rank and file Democrats, I understand the appeal of voting for those you think are more 'caring'. But for those who have access to information or are leaders like journalists and elected Democrats, we can only speculate as to why you attack conservatives as uncaring and continue developing the same type of solutions which result in poor results. It seems to us that 'caring' would require a look at results and then honestly discussing what might change the poor results to good ones.

We all want our children to grow up to be independant and self-reliant young adults. We see time and time again what the result is of overcaring parenting where the children are fed everything, given everything and sheilded from consequences. Poor choices are made by these children more frequently and a sense of accomplishment is seldom attained. And if sheilded from consequences even more dire results are likely.

I remember when my oldest daughter was in 2nd grade, she was starting to take longer and longer to do homework. She was asking me leading questions and basically having me do her homework for her as that is what she did with mom. I realized quickly what was going on. I started asking my daughter if she understood the assignment. If she didn't, I'd ask her to read aloud the assignment. Through conversation and questions I made sure she understood the assignment. But I affirmed to her that I want her to finish that assignment as I want the answers or the report or the problem solving to be her work, her words, her effort. The days of me the father scanning the story for the answer to the reading comprehension question for her were now over and for the betterment of her future. She started reading the story and answering the questions as she knew how.

A few posts ago, I posted about how federal spending has increased in ALL categories of spending from 2001 through 2005. This has been the case every year for over 6 decades. What does that mean? On the scale of -10 to +10 this country's government has essentially moved to the left every year for over 6 decades.

On a political scale -10 would be maximum government and +10 would be anarchy. Obviously there is a happy medium (zero) but this country and it's elected representatives and Senators and President have basically led this country more to the left of center (bigger government) every year for over 6 decades. We have not had an actual movement to the right (in terms of size of government). When you hear Democrats and journalists scream (or talk) about the 'far' right or staunch conservatives or hard right governing this country, you know these are the folks without perspective. Libertarians want a cut in the size of government to the tune of 80%. That would be hard right. Republicans have governed and legislated to the left of center, just not as far left of center as the Democrats do (as measured by totalling up the amount of spending in proposed legislation - a good barometer that journalists generally avoid).

Ownership and earnings go a long way towards a better environment, better education, and less dependency.

If a person is given a home (as in Section 8 housing), the new home is within a year or so in poor shape. Care is not given to the home as it would've been if it was earned or their was some incentive to take care of (through ownership). The environment suffers when things aren't taken care of. Materials are wasted instead of taken pride in and made to last. Pride leads to learning more and accomplishing more. Dependency leads to complacency and no sense of urgency about learning. This is the same result I discussed in a post that I discussed the 'living wage'. If I was earning a 'living wage' back when I worked part time at Pizza Hut in my teenage years, what incentive would I have had to better myself, to join the Navy, to get a degree, to obtain the certifications that I've obtained, or to have the 18 year career in computers that I have had? I knew there was no future in making pizza - except to enjoy at home with my daughters.

I've gone a little long here, but my intent was to contrast the philosphies of liberalism with conservatism and try to explain why I think the safer and more dangerous cities are represented the way they are. I know that liberals are generally "well intentioned". That isn't the question. The question is what solutions should we implement to get good results?

Raising Taxes? Please Don't (Baklava)

Opinion Journal has a great piece today.

Apparently, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin is asking Democrats to raise taxes. He says, "I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy."

The Wall Street Journal replies, "We suppose it's reassuring that Mr. Rubin now thinks the economy is strong enough to withstand a tax increase. That's a switch from his opposition to the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which he predicted would bust the budget and do little for growth. The U.S. economy proceeded to grow by an average of nearly 4% a year for three years following mid-2003, until the recent slowdown due largely to the housing slump.

Everyone makes mistakes, but raising taxes amid a housing decline doesn't sound like brilliant policy to us. Depending on inflation signals in the coming weeks, the Federal Reserve may not be done raising interest rates. The best hope for avoiding a recession next year and into 2008 is that strong corporate profits and the tight job market will lift business investment and consumer spending enough to offset the impact of tighter monetary policy. The last thing the economy needs now is a tax increase, too."

For help, let me add that an economic slowdown egged on by tax 'increases' would cause profits to slump, people to be laid off, therefore less consumer and corporate spending which leads to less goods and services being purchased and therefore less people (labor) needing to provide or manufacture goods and services. What would that do to revenues into the government? That would decrease revenues into the government as less people would be earning to be taxed and profits would be down and therefore less available to be taxed.

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal raises the question, "And what are the urgent "fiscal problems" that justify a tax increase, anyway? As the nearby chart shows, federal revenues in fiscal 2006 were 18.4% of GDP, higher than the 18.2% post-1965 average. In October, the first month of fiscal 2007, revenues rose by 12% from a year earlier."

That last sentence might be a little confusing. It's referring to a 12% rise in nominal dollars not percentage points. This nominal dollars increase has been a double digit increase in revenues for 3 years now. So, what brings in more revenue into the government? A strong economy does. More people working, higher profits, more people spending all lead to more revenues into the government.

Economic prosperity gives our government the ability to focus on:
1) National security
2) Environmental issues
3) Education
4) Health

Not that I agree with those priorities on a national level but I'm trying to appeal to liberals. It is good that we reduce dependency on government and are able to focus on other priorities right? When dependency increases it reduces government's ability to focus on anything else but the dependent class of people.

News or Opinion? (Baklava)

H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer writes an article titled DOE vows to turn up appliance efficiency . Note: Bear with me here - this gets REALLY good.

The first two paragraphs are normal:

WASHINGTON - The Energy Department has agreed to boost energy efficiency requirements for nearly two dozen household appliances and equipment from dishwashers to fluorescent lamps as part of a court settlement after years of inaction. The new standards will be phased in over the next five years.

The agreement, filed in the U.S. District Court in New York and announced Monday, settles a lawsuit filed last year by environmental groups, 15 states and the city of New York because of delays in improving federal appliance efficiency requirements.

That's nice. I'm for efficiency. I'm for improving efficiency standards realistically. I don't know if the agreement is realistic because the details are not in this AP article.

What is in the AP article? This nugget of news opinion:

Critics of the Bush administration's energy efficiency efforts said some of the standards have been long overdue.

How did Bush's name come into the news piece? In Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 many of it's bullet points are devoted to conservation but you wouldn't know that the way the drive-by legacy press fails to report. The AP decides to report on a lawsuit against the Department of Energy that has just been settled and has nothing to do with Bush yet slap the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of large bureaucratic government on Bush. Let's see what the NEXT sentence is in this article:

The lawsuit charged that the Energy Department was 13 years late in meeting a number of the requirements, although Congress required that appliance standards be updated.

How do journalists/reporters logically put those two sentences next to each other? 13 years. Bush has been in office 5.8 years before this agreement came into existence and might I add... dealing with one of the worst attacks on our country during much of his presidency. 13-5.8= OK. That means that the Energy Department was 7.2 years late under Clinton in meeting a number of the requirements. That's nearly his entire 2 terms. What was he doing all that time?

I decided to act like a journalist (can I get paid for doing their job) and look up what EPact 2005 has. You wouldn't believe the phrases and sentences I found on page 9 of 12 of one .pdf on the Department of Energy's website:

IF WE ARE TO MEET this nation’s
energy needs in a cost-effective
way, we must increase energy
efficiency and conservation practices.
EPAct contains dozens of provisions
aimed at improving the energy
efficiency of our homes, our businesses
and our government agencies
and for increasing conservation across
the United States. EPAct establishes
energy efficiency standards for federal
buildings and extends the Energy
Savings Performance Contract
program. It also establishes energy
conservation standards for a number
of consumer products, supports a
model building energy code compliance
program and promotes incentives
for smart energy practices.
Key implementation actions to
date include:
• Improving the energy efficiency
of consumer products
EPAct sets new minimum energy
efficiency standards for a range of
consumer and commercial products
including unit heaters, air conditioners,
commercial refrigerators and some
lighting technologies.
Progress: On October 18, 2005,
DOE issued a number of efficiency
standards prescribed by EPAct. And,
on January 31, 2006, the Department
submitted a report to Congress announcing
a schedule for all upcoming
appliance efficiency standards. The report
documents that over the next five
years, the Department will publish new
or amended appliance standards for 23
different products including residential
furnaces and boilers, air conditioners,
ceiling fan light kits, commercial clothes
washers, residential dishwashers, ranges
and ovens.

That was in the DOE .pdf file. In the AP article, the intelligent AP writer goes on:

The court agreement calls for the new standards to go into effect at varying times, the earliest in early 2007 and the latest by June, 2011.

The standards will cover 22 appliances and household equipment, including heating and air conditioning systems, water heaters, boilers and motors, dishwashers, clothes dryers and fluorescent lighting.

Isn't that something? Almost the same exact words and phrases in the court agreement just reached as the EPact 2005 passed by Congress that Bush was pushing for since the beginning of his presidency.

I was almost ready to believe the drive-by legacy media for the first time since 1991 (when I converted from liberalism) until I saw that this court agreement (portrayed by the AP writer to look like such a win for environmental groups against Bush's Department of Energy) was in fact the environmental groups getting what they wanted through EPact 2005 (because of President Bush - and the first new energy policy in over a decade).

The only thing I learned from this article is that my distrust of the legacy media is cemented even further into the ground as we are lied to in almost every piece of news opinion written by them.

I expect H. Josef Hebert's salary for a day. My hand is out waiting ..... ok. I'm kidding. I know I'm not going to get paid for this service........but I could wish...

Miscellaneous (Baklava)

12.6% of the Popular Vote?
No. Only by cherry picking states (the states with Senate races). See Betsy's Page for more details of Democrat misleading tactics.

La Shawn has a must read about ... hey why should I tell you what it's about? Go read it !

Listen to Tammy Bruce and Charles (from Little Green Footballs) discuss politics.

This is big news on drudge at the moment.  The sub would've been  sunk within minutes if it did fire a torpedo at the Kitty Hawk but any nation would gladly lose a sub to an air craft carrier. While this is embarrassing, the personnel on the Kitty Hawk were probably not in any kind of alert status.
In the article is this:

Between 2002 and last year, China built 14 new submarines, including new Song-class vessels and several other types, both diesel- and nuclear-powered.
    Since 1996, when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in a show of force, Beijing also has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships.

That warmongerer Clinton got us into this mess in 1996? I'm being funny of course. The United States has conducted exercises every year in different areas of the world. It's the Navy way. Readiness is important. There is always new personnel and they have to be trained. They have to be trained for safety reasons and familiarity with the equipment so that everything is second nature.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a perspective from a retired submarine officer.

Now that Rumsfeld is gone, how did this happen? Must be that our troops still think torture is ok because of some Bush memo that said torture is ok. Democrats and the drive-by legacy media have said that Bush is for torture enough times that I think our uneducated soldiers believe it (BTW, I was in the Navy for 6 years and this is an obvious reference to Kerry's "joke"). But seriously, I just hope the media doesn't blow this out of proportion and call for hearings or investigations. I can just see David Gregory heckling Tony Snow about the video now.
Gregory: Tony, What does the president think about what happened to the woman being taped up on the video and when did the president know about it? And as a follow up - Why did it take so long for the president to ....

ah, you get the point.

I Remember

(Thanks to Rob Port)

Remember... (Tully)

....those who have given so much.

Today is Veteran's Day. Remember to thank, or at least to remember, a veteran.

Yesterday was the 231st birthday of the United States Marine Corps. For those of you doing some quick math in your heads, let me spare you the trouble. Marines were defending our nation before the Declaration of Independence was written. Semper Fidelis.

The President's Veteran's Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery can be found here.

I liked Dick Armey (still do) (Baklava)

Dick Armey has a piece today that I like.

The second to the last paragraph states:

We need to remember Ronald Reagan's legacy and again stand for positive, big ideas that get power and money out of politics and government bureaucracy and back into the hands of individuals. We also need again to demonstrate an ability to be good stewards of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

I don't know if Dick Armey is right... well, of course he's right about how Republicans should govern/legislate... but is he right about how to get enough voters? I don't know. People seem to WANT more spending. The easiest way for Democrats to gain voters or points in the polls is to attack conservatives or Republicans as not "caring" and slashing spending for veterans benefits, health, education, environment or whatever. Spending in all of those categories has gone up with more than double digit increases during the Bush years yet he still gets criticized as:
a) Not funding the education mandates to the states or whatever nonsense
b) cutting veterans benefits or whatever false accusation here
c) (insert item here) that everyone cares about - but know the accusation is FALSE

So... Back to my assertion that people seem to want more government spending. 3 states had caps to their spending as propositions. Those propositions failed. CA just voted for 100 Billion dollars worth (exact dollar amount coming in future post) of bond propositions. CA has voted on propositions every year since 2001. If every year there was 100 billion in debt added to be paid off over 30 years that would be 3 trillion dollars. Here's another way to look at it. 100 Billion is about the size of the current CA government's budget. So the bonds just doubled CA spending. So convenient. But that's what the voters wanted.

Do you want a 3rd example? People wanted prescription drugs from the government. The Republicans gave it and they gave an expensive plan that costs billions and billions of dollars. Hundreds of billions. Yet, it was a market and cost bases solution that had customers paying part of the share of prescription drugs. Yes, complexity of the plan was a problem but many of those problems have been worked out. But most Democrat leaders hate the plan and like a plan that isn't market and cost based and costs more taxpayer dollars than the Republicans. And Americans just voted in these leaders and representatives.

Some might argue with me that Dick Armey's point may refer to earmarks or pork barrel spending. I ask you dear reader, do you know what percentage of federal expenditures goes toward pork spending or earmarks? It isn't very high. While I agree with everyone that this IS a problem, it is not the main problem perspective wise.

So what is the problem? The problem is America's appetite for government spending is high and America isn't generally educated about how much the federal and state governments spend and that every year there are increases. Democrats and journalists call increases cuts with no consequence to their mischaracterization. Leftists bloggers link to articles by the Washington Post, New York Times and LA times and even government organizations themselves referring to "cuts". These allegations are FALSE and the drive-by legacy media needs to do the due diligence of educating and reporting the facts instead of treating the issue as a he said / she said argument. There are plain legitimate facts here.

On page 5 of this .pdf from Heritage Foundation federal expenditures have clearly increased for every category of spending. This is where journalists fail. EVERY newspaper should have this chart EVERY year at least. With the facts on the table Democrats would have to explain their rhetoric and journalists couldn't reduce the argument to a Dem said Repub said argument. People actually believe veterans benefits or whatever else has been cut. Leftists bloggers will write it over and over and over. It isn't true.

For those who are link challenged, I'm pasting a subset of the chart information below:

Federal Spending By Category, 2001-2005

(Nominal $Millions)

                        2001      2005      %Increase
Social Security        $432,958  $519,686    20%
National Defense        304,882   500,770    64%
Medicare                217,384   295,432    36%
Income SecurityPrograms 152,640   211,929    39%
Medicaid                129,374   188,497    46%
Federal Retirement&Disab 80,972    94,312    16%
Education                35,203    70,520   100%
Health Research & Regul  42,896    69,035    61%
Veterans Benefits        45,039    68,161    51%
Highways & Mass Transit  35,804    43,694    22%
Justice Admin            30,205    40,657    35%
Unemployment Benefits    30,242    38,066    26%
International Affairs    16,493    31,961    94%
Natural Resrcs & Environ 25,623    30,960    21%
Farm Subsidies           26,253    30,504    16%
Training,Empl,Social Srvs21,940    25,734    17%
Science, Space & Technol 19,784    24,021    21%
Community Region Develop 11,773    20,141    71%
General Government       14,260    18,855    32%
Air Transportation       13,975    17,951    28%
Housing & Commerce        5,739    10,653    86%
Water Transportation      4,668     6,841    47%
General Retire& Disabil   5,761     6,611    15%
Energy                        9     1,441 15911%
UndistribOffsetRecptOther-47,011  -76,432    69%
Net Interest            206,167   180,000   -11%
Total Spending    1,863,033 2,470,000  33%

There are no cuts in spending on any category. If a category had a decrease in the amount of increase because they were going to get 10% increase but only got 7% increase, it still is an increase.

The truth is that the amount of money every category (veterans benefits, education, health, environment) receives is higher every year and it has been this way for over 6 decades.

My belief is that for Dick Armey's plan to be successful, the American people need to learn how our government spends and spends so they won't be upset when Republicans or conservatives are attacked by journalists and Democrats as "cutters and slashers". Instead, they would get upset at the people lying....

Lemonade (AskMom)

I flew cross country yesterday and my seat mate, a young Marine, was a gift from God.  He certainly had the better perspective about Tuesday, a day best described by Judith Viorst as a: "terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day."

Thanks, "Mike" for kicking my brain back into productive mode. I'd vented some of my fears about the next two years and he reacted with scorn: "What, you gonna move to France?"

We'd better take our licks, learn our lessons and find a better gear for the coming hill climb.   

For the record, I called this election wrong, wrong, wrong; and I am hereby making an abject and absolute apology.  No John Kerry, I take complete responsibility for messing it up.  If you listened to my insane ravings about how we'd get bloodied but not bowed, I abase myself and beg forgiveness. 

Two close friends who used to call themselves "Congressman" will be unemployed January 20.  I am just thankful that family duties kept me completely out of their campaigns.  If I'd helped them lose it would be time for Seppuku.

So Mike and I made a list of the good news about Tuesday:

• It's more fun to be the loyal opposition, sniping, snarking and cackling at will.
• Rummy had to go sooner or later anyway, or he'd have been savaged by Congress for his long distance micromanaging.  Making him the sacrificial goat suits everyone, probably even him.
• George can finally shake the dust off the veto pen.
• Election-meth powered Moonbat behavior will provide bonus blogging fodder.
• Tax increases, preferential treatment for fringies and communist social programs will create voter disgust just in time for the 2008 Presidential election.
• Pelosi mishandling of Jihadist threat will get the attention, and disdain, of the Freerangers.
• Increased exposure for Democratic presidential candidates will put more heat on Hillary.

Finally, just a few words about Iraq from my new friend.  He was at Fallujah and other critical parts of the battle for Iraqi freedom and claims most soldiers there agree: the Iraqis want our stability while they figure out how to do democracy.  Our Commander-in-Chief will never order us to abandon them, regardless the hand wringing in Congress.  And by the 2008 election, America will have gotten a good look at Pelosi and her crowd, and we'll have another Republican President.

Drink up your lemonade, we have work to do.

Civil Rights Initiatives... (Baklava)

I've lived in CA now for 14 years. It was 1996 (Thanks for the correction XRLQ) when Prop 209 the CA Civil Rights Initiative passed. Ward Connerly (author of "Creating Equal") continues to put teeth into Prop 209 by having the law enforced by those who try to ignore it.

Betsy from Betsy's Page (one of my daily visits) points out that there is one bright spot. Michigan passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

The way I put it is that my daughters (who are 7 and 10) are in public school and that they should not be discriminated against or given preferential treatment to when compared to any other girls who grow and learn in public school and apply for colleges later in life. Look at their merit, effort and other quantitative qualities. In order to heal racial divisions we need to start now. Our kids are attending schools now. Teach them well. Teach them about merit.

Joey was voted off and other light topics like.... Hydrogen (Baklava)

So... I like the show Dancing with the stars. I cheered when Drew won last year even though I wish they just called it a three way tie between Stacey, Jerry Rice and Drew. This year I have been hoping for either Joey or Emmitt Smith but Joey made 3rd place and won't be in the finale.

What other loves do I have? Home Improvement, cooking, and keeping up with technology, science and whatnot. Ever since high school when I learned about Hydrogen in Chemistry class, I always thought Hydrogen could be used instead of gas in cars. I watched fascinated as two electrodes in water (one negative and one positive) made water separate into hydrogen and oxygen. A balloon connected to the contraption filled with the hydrogen in minutes. And to everyone's delight the teacher struck a match and we watched a quick flash of flame when the hydrogen burned quickly.

So... due to my fascination I've always kept up on the technology/science/economics of using hydrogen for transportation. Popular Mechanics has a very good article outlining the difficulties in using hydrogen. It wants to stay attached to other elements as a molecule (like water - H20). It attaches very easily and is very hard to separate. It takes a lot of energy to separate and then store.

One part of the article says:

The lightest gas in the universe isn't easy to corral. Skeptics say that hydrogen promises to be a needlessly expensive solution for applications for which simpler, cheaper and cleaner alternatives already exist. "You have to step back and ask, 'What is the point?'" says Joseph Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy & Climate Solutions.

What is the point? I don't know. Because Brazil is doing it - so we have to do it. Sounds like peer pressure. How about because it's the cleanest of fuels - and that is cool ! Yes, it is clean but how much energy is expended in separating out hydrogen from water so that it can be used. That energy isn't clean....

Yes, I have a soft spot in my heart for the fuel "way of storing or transporting energy"  (Popular Mechanics says that's what it is and that it isn't a fuel), but  look at this paragraph:

At present, 95 percent of America's hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Through a process called steam methane reformation, high temperature and pressure break the hydrocarbon into hydrogen and carbon oxides — including carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. Over the next 10 or 20 years, fossil fuels most likely will continue to be the main feedstock for the hydrogen economy. And there's the rub: Using dirty energy to make clean energy doesn't solve the pollution problem-it just moves it around. "As a CO2 reducer, hydrogen stinks," Romm says.

After all that I've studied about Hydrogen I didn't know this secret. Why? Because the drive-by legacy press fails to do their job. Journalists around the country should be doing research, finding facts and publishing them. To give people the idea that hydrogen is a panacea or the wave of the future or a great hope without giving the other side of the story is negligent. Then again, when have journalists done due diligence lately? That was rhetorical. They haven't done it in constitutional law, economics, environment, ok... I'm overly harsh. They can't sell their product if they get too deep into the subject matter right?

I love charts and this article has a handy dandy one on the 3rd page giving people perspective about how much would be required for a technology to replace fossil fuels (like solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc). Pretty interesting stuff.

What issues were voted for and against? (Baklava)

Tammy Bruce had a convenient link to all the issues that were voted for an against by the people. As I said in a previous post - the results are mixed (conservative versus liberal issues):

7 states defined marriage as between a man and a woman - 1 state rejected that (AZ)
9 states limited eminent domain seizures - 2 rejected that (CA and Idaho)
6 states raised the minimum wage - 0 rejected that idea
2 states increased tobacco taxes - 2 states rejected (CA and Missouri)
0 states capped state spending - 3 states rejected caps to state spending (Nebraska, Maine, Oregon)

I actually did something I would've never done previously and voted for the failed proposition raising  taxes by $2.60 per pack on cigarette's in CA. I lost my BEST friend ever and LOVE of my life in July 2006 to advanced lung cancer and I voted totally on feelings and without reason. She had quit smoking on 4/11/2006 after over 30+ years and died without knowing she had the cancer and without anyone including myself or the hospital knowing she had it. We (friends and family) were lucky that we were able to get an autopsy. While the product is legal, I would love for these indulgences in life to be expense I guess now. It doesn't need to be an often indulgence and it doesn't need to be so affordable that people have this indulgence often. After reasoning after the fact, I think that raising the taxes on cigarettes would have very little economic impact (except to farmers who grow tobacco - better diversify away from that crop) and the revenue would be better than revenue obtained from people needing the necessities in life or revenue from taxed income. Necessities and income should be taxed much less. I still love her sooo much... Thanks for listening.....

Note: Only kind comments accepted here....

Which way is America headed on minimum wage? (Baklava)

Malkin mentions Bush common ground talk concerning the minimum wage.

Here in CA, Governor Arnold signed into law in Sep 2006 a minimum wage increase of $7.50 per hour starting 1/1/2007 (a few days away) and $8.00 per hour 1/1/2008.

I am not in the camp of never raising minimum wage nor am I in the opposite camp of having a so-called "living wage". I am a centrist conservative. Where do you all stand?

Let me explain:
1) Every area of the country has different costs of living. While CA has set an $8 per hour minimum and it may be a little high for the central valley of CA or the Northern area (outside of non metropolitan areas), it is what sells with the electorate here in CA because there isn't a majority of conservatives here. If the federal minimum wage were to match CA or exceed it, it would crush many mom and pop businesses or even large retail businesses in areas of the country that has a low cost of living.
2) I worked at Pizza Hut as a teenager for 3 years making close to minimum wage. If Pizza Hut (or any other business) had to pay a "living wage" to people who make minimum wage (which are a majority teenagers who live with parents or elderly supplementing retirement and social security), that'd be GREAT for those earning that money but it would shrink the amount of people earning because companies would have to figure out ways to cut staff or costs. It doesn't make sense to require companies to have higher costs of "living wage" when the people earning the "living wage" by a large majority do not need a "living wage". It deincentivizes (is that a word) the need for teenagers to LEARN, expand their skillsets, better themselves, study, go to college, aspire to earn more in any way. Big government is not what conservatives believe in for a reason. Not because we don't "care" but because we don't think big government solutions would end up with "good results". Would I have chosen a great and fulfilling career of 18 years in computers if I was earning a "living wage" when living with my parents working for Pizza Hut? Who knows? The incentive would not have been there to take the ASVAB test, score as high as I did and join the Navy as a Data Systems technician giving me a salable skill to have on my resume along with taking the college courses that I have and getting the certifications that I have.
3) Number 1 was about different areas of the country. Number 2 was about "living wage". Number 3 will be about the issue of whether part-time work should be made illegal. There is so much mud in the water with illegal immigrants striking in Texas over how much they make "per day" yet they are part time employees and many other examples of journalists muddying the water. Part-time work is legal. Maybe it ought to be made illegal so that unemployment can go up and people will either have to get a full time job with benefits or not work at all (just kidding - I don't agree with that philosophy). There is a happy medium between full employment and unemployment and that is to be a part time employee. Some part time employees do receive benefits but not the same usually as a full time employee.

Unfortunately, the minimum wage issue is used as a political hammer to say that conservatives "don't care" or whatever. That rhetoric is uncalled for and unhelpful to the debate. On a federal level things might change as they haven't since 1997. It will be irrelevant to the states with a higher cost of living as theirs exceeds the federal rate. But the larger debate about part-time work and living wage issues will remain and I hope I've persuaded a few people to not let the political hammer be used to convince them that Republicans/conservatives are bad and Democrats/liberals are good. That outlook would serve to be a disservice because conservatives truly do care.

Who'd a thunk? (Baklava)

The election had mixed results. Whether Steele wins or loses in Maryland he received a higher percentage of votes than there are registered Republicans by far. Was it Arizona that voted for English as the official language? That's good. Lieberman (the non-anti-war candidate) won. Democrats picked up seats though.

Who do I blame? That isn't a relevant question to me. I hope Democrats and Republicans are reading this and taking notes on how to move forward. I could go on saying things like, I blame the drive-by legacy media who set out to vilify, or that I blame Bush for (insert reasons here), but what does it accomplish? It is what it is... The votes were cast and now blaming is divisive and hurtful. This is a lesson for all people to learn not just Democrats (who used each death in the war or insurgent uprising as a way to blame as if wars don't have tragic loss of life or the enemy is controlled by us in a war). Republicans will look like sore losers if we blame faulty voting equipment, Bush's stance on this or that, or the drive-by legacy media's past divisiveness and attack agenda journalism as the reason why we lost. We lost seats. The drive-by legacy media will do what they do and we need to do more convincing and winning of hearts and minds in the future.

What is required now is to try to win the hearts and minds of more and more people that conservativism is the way to go. According to polls, more people have identified themselves with conservativism than liberalism for over a decade. That does NOT translate to which party people will vote for or register with. Essentially, we are still a 50/50 nation more or less.

Conservatives NEED to convince more people every day of the following principles:
1) Strong national security - as prescribed by the constitution
2) More self reliance and less dependancy on government - Able bodied dependancy dilutes the ability of government to provide for the non-able bodied, elderly and children
3) That life is precious
4) Allowing people to choose who gets what resources - the definition of capitalism (it isn't a dirty word no matter how many journalists don't know how capitalism is defined)
5) I'll stop here.

We have our work cut out for us. Not being interested in blaming doesn't mean I can't criticize or tear apart the work of the drive-by legacy media in the future. But I'll try to do so in a way that is persuasive. People can be persuaded (as I was one and one of my friends was one who was persuaded towards conservativism) and my goal is to be persuasive. That doesn't mean I will always succeed.

While Arnold won here in CA, conservativism didn't win. Arnold is to the left of center. The 100 billion in bond propositions in CA won (I will give exact dollar amounts in my next post) here in CA won. Why is this? It has nothing to do with Republicans versus Democrats more than it has to do with the fact there are 4 groups of voters. The liberals, the conservatives, the so-called middle, and the extremists on either side. Conservatives need to pick up where the drive-by legacy press fails and educate and have a winning message. For the most part conservatives do this already, but we need to do better.

There is room for conservatives to have differing opinions but what is most important is that we inform more and more of the so-called middle and maybe even persuade some liberals that conservativism is the way.

Why?

Because this country's government has moved left of center for the most part every year for over 6 decades. Dependancy has grown (Big 3 entitlements is now at 50% of the federal budget), and Defense (security) has shrunk (3 decades ago defense was 50% of the federal budget and it has gone down over 3 decades to now 20% of the federal budget expenditures), all the while the federal budget has grown in nominal dollars every year for over 6 decades. It is not a crisis. I believe my children (who are 7 and 10) will enjoy a prosperous future. But I would like a country where there is more prosperity and ability to defend ourselves rather than less. Who doesn't of course? But there-in lies the debate over solutions and their results and which solution would provide said results...

Senate Hangs on Absentee Ballots (Tully)

Buried in the wire reports is the news that in many areas of Virginia the absentee ballots have not yet been counted. There were at least 100,000 absentee ballots requested in Virginia before the application deadline, including military absentee ballots. It's not unusual for local election boards to put off counting the absentee ballots on election day, when their hands are full. Now I understand why Allen has not conceded.

In Montana, local papers report 8 to 10 thousand absentee ballots still to be tabulated in Yellowstone County, and about 18 precincts as yet unreported in Meagher and Beaverhead counties, which is Burns country.

UPDATE: AP is now reporting that Tester's lead is insurmountable, and is calling him the winner in Montana. The numbers reported by AP are higher than the semi-official count on the Montana elections site.

Election Results (Tully)

For the less-than-ambitious results watchers this evening who aren't up to piecing it all together themselves, the Truth Laid Bear blog (a Pajamas Media member) has an excellent extended Election Meter up, with a simple meter at the top and a detailed scorecard down below. Results should begin arriving about 8PM Eastern.

UPDATE: NBC has fearlessly predicted that Robert Byrd will retain his Senate seat. I am shocked that they would stick their necks out that far....

UPDATE: Allen and Webb tied with 20% reporting. LATER: Still "tied" with only 2% out. Recount time.

UPDATE: Joe Negron is leading by a few for Mark Foley's seat! 25% reporting. LATER: Negron concedes, losing by 2%.

UPDATE: Santorum and DeWine are out. No surprise there. Chaffee and Burns out. It's all Allen and Talent. Allen's tied, Talent is leading by 6 with 50% reporting but they haven't reported St. Louis yet.

Evolution in Action (Tully)

Long lines, problems with voting machines reported across Ohio

James W. Marquart of Cleveland said he left an elementary school polling place without voting because his name wasn't on the rolls even though he had a postcard from the elections board showing that's where he was to vote.

"They did offer me a provisional ballot but I have absolutely no faith in provisional ballots," he said. "I don't want to do a ballot that I fear won't be counted."

Um, excuse me, but refusing to cast a ballot at all somewhat guarantees that your vote won't be counted, doesn't it? The article reports that this numbskull, instead of casting a ballot designed just for such occasions, went seeking a lawyer instead. While the polls were still open, and willing to accept his provisional ballot. If voting is an intelligence test, someone just flunked. Regardless of his partisan inclinations, I can't help but think that the entire body politic might be better off for his vote not being cast....

In Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland and elsewhere, lines more than 30 people deep formed at polling places.

Thirty whole people deep? Snicker. When I voted in 2004, the line stretched out of the door and around the building. With eight machines going inside it took me well over an hour to vote that election. This morning there were about thirty people in line when I arrived, and I was out in ten minutes. Folks, you have the right to vote. You do not have the right to vote at the polls at your leisure, complete to personal catering. And you can demand perfection as much as you want, but life will consistently refuse to deliver. Election boards and commission do make mistakes, screw up records, etc., all with no conspiracy involved. That's why we have provisional ballots. Getting a postcard announcing the polling place for your address of residence doesn't mean you're properly registered, it means that the election commission wants folks in your area to know where the polling places are.

Poll Watching (Tully)

For die-hard poll-watchers who are tired of the media histrionics and the partisan talking heads so oft featured on Election Night, Opinion Journal has a nifty guide to the hour-by-hour poll closings across the country, and this sage advice:

Don't feel obligated to listen to the endless analysis of the pundits (including me) on the networks. Consider turning down the TV to a whisper and either watching the crawl of actual returns on the bottom of the screen or monitoring them on the Internet at sites like Pajamas Media.

Ok, they actually listed another site, but we have our favorites! In any case, unless you're simply dedicated to wallowing in histrionics and angst, turning the sound off is a good idea. The one good bet for the evening is that there will be a whole lotta rantin' goin' on, and the real news and results will be in the graphics and text. Good spots to keep an eye on for classic vote fraud will be Baltimore, St. Louis, and Cincinnatti. Bellwether races to watch will be the Senate races in Maryland, Rhode Island, Virginia, Missouri, and Montana.

My humble thanks to our host for the guest blogger invitation.

How The Mighty Can Fall (AskMom)

Thanks, Baldilocks, for letting me rant here while you're doing the heavy lifting over at Pajamas Media.  Not only do I get the fun of posting to a blog way too good for me, but Pajamas' growth keeps Gerard Van der Leun too busy to snipe about the Pacific Northwest's polar fleece addiction.  It's a win-win situation!

Last night in Seattle in the driving rain (but I repeat myself) the once unstoppable Raiders took the field with a petulant bad attitude, no offense,  no game plan.  My beloved Seahawks provided the necessary reality check.

So it goes for those who assume their right to a victory.  Tomorrow I expect the ever-truculent John Who-Me-Apologize Kerry and his fellow self-anointed saviors of society to be doing their Raiders imitations down by the endzones.  Last minute disclaimers don't pull the stinger; the flurry of "don't blame us" memos swirling around the New York Times doesn't fool anybody.

The Pew Poll was the signal flag but the infractions were already committed way down the field by the arrogant, the smug and the clueless.

Hectoring decent, mainstream Americans about partial birth abortions and the evils of Christianity is no classier than kneeing the opponent in the groin when you lose.  Dissing the troops and the Commander-in-Chief is not a party platform.  Today's the reality check for politicians who think Cape Cod and San Francisco are all you need to know about America . 

Tomorrow the obliviously liberal will be taking down their losing yard signs in the rain.  It couldn't happen to a more deserving team.

Where will there be the most voting problems? (Baklava)

I speculate the most voting problems will be in the 10 most dangerous cities in America.

On the list of mayors and representatives of those cities, I see one Republican. The reality is that these cities have evolved over time. They aren't this way because of one mayor. But if you look back over time I would venture to say that they've had a trend of Democrat mayors representing them as mayor and representatives in Congress.

Their anti-business environment, dependancy on government expansion, and security laxness is not only an indicator at how they would lead state-wide but nationally. And... it is their own doing if there are lines wrapping around buildings with voters trying to vote. When I first left the military in 1994, in between the military and civilian employment I volunteered here in CA to be a poll worker (in northern CA). There were plenty of volunteers. The place was adequately staffed. This sadly is not the case in dependancy mentality, non volunteer oriented, big leftist cities....

OK. I may be overgeneralizing with the non-volunteering but the statistics don't lie and the pattern of lines wrapping around buildings in big cities does occur and .... so does the crime ... and unemployment rates being higher ... and the Democrats representing these cities mostly.

So... Here's to New York being off the list of the most dangerous cities after clean up by RUDY !!! Good Job Rudy ! Maybe you can be vice president one day! Security matters. Business does well in safe areas.

What are women going to do? (Baklava)

Tammy Bruce (she gave a hat tip to LGF who linked to the TNR article) talks about a recent PEW poll.

She quoted TNR's article:
John Judis and I have been e-mailing about the alarming Pew poll that came out today. It reflects the same trends captured by that earlier Washington Post/ABC poll, except that the trends are, gulp, even more pronounced. Worse, the folks at Pew have graciously posted their cross-tabs, which makes it nearly impossible to rationalize the lousy results. As John points out, the fact that Democrats' 15-point advantage among white women last month has turned into a 2-point disadvantage today is incredibly ominous. Unfortunately, it's not quite as ominous as the erosion in the Democrats' advantage among Northeasterners: from 26 points to 9. The Northeast is, of course, a region where Democrats are banking on roughly half a dozen pick-ups. That kind of dropoff isn't going to get the job done. (One bright spot: the Dems' advantage in the Midwest held steady.)

Those wonderful women !! Call it Reason #4 for my prediction....

BTW, I predict a Michael Steele win tomorrow in Maryland. Why? Because he's personable, very handsome, a great orator and good on the issues.  There are more Democrats than Republicans in Maryland but Michael Steele has received quite a few surprising endorsements from Democrats and black leaders in Maryland. Good luck Michael. I wish you the best !

Who will gain or lose? (Baklava)

Predictions on how people will act or vote are incredibly difficult. I could be wrong, close, right or extremely wrong. This post will not be an indication of my intelligence or a claim to know the pulse of America. I've lived in VA for 22 years and CA now for 14 years.

While I used to be a liberal before 1991, I heard an alternative viewpoint in 1991 which caused me to visit the library 3 times a week for a full year. I had a core belief change to libertarianism (wanting to cut government spending 80%) and have since wised up to be a centrist conservative (wanting government spending to stay the same for the next 10 years instead of increase as it has done every year for the last 6 decades).

While I've seen things from a different perspetive for the last 15 years and may not be wise to how most Americans will vote, I do know that there has been a tremendous shift since the drive-by legacy media lost their monopoly 20 years ago. One by one people like me are having a core belief change because they are exposed to the facts, common sense and an alternative viewpoint then the one that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Wash Po, LA Times, Newsweek, etc has given them. One of my proudest moments of my life is converting one of my good friends who is a black American (he doesn't refer to himself as African American) to conservativism. In 1999 after a 9 hour political discussion (in a San Francisco bar and then later smoking cigars outside the hotel before we went to bed - in separate rooms - we were installing servers near where the SF Giants play) he told me he registered as a Republican and is attributing it to me. Does that mean Republicans are good and Democrats are bad? No. Does it mean that Republicans do no wrong and Democrats do only bad? No. But in general we agree with the philosophy that it's better to teach a man to fish than give him fish, use common sense and look at the results of a desired solution rather than "feel" what a solution might result in, and a strong national defense as the constitution specifies for, and promoting privatization and self reliance so that the government's ability to provide for non-able-bodied, elderly and/or children is not diluted by able bodied people and other non essential services.

So...... I guess this post has 3 purposes. 1) Tell you a little bit about my politics and where I come from 2) Hopefully help you see where conservatives come from if you are a political newbie and are going to vote tomorrow 3) Give you my PREDICTIONS!!!

My prediction is that neither the House or Senate will lose the amount of seats that Republicans hold. I'll give you a few reasons and I'll keep a few reasons in my head. :) Here are the few reasons that I'll share:

1) The PUNCH Foley for Negron campaign seems to be going well

2) Arnold's coat tails will help Republican Congress people in CA and Phil Angelides lack of support will draw down Democrat Congress people in CA. It might gain a few seats here in CA that people weren't even looking at.

3) I seriously doubt the accuracy of polls as I've been called a few times to answer poll questions myself and have hung up on these non-wording questions very well pollsters. I have two friends that only use mobile phone services and they are not getting questioned.

While these reasons may not be enough to substantiate my predictions and again.... I may be extremely wrong I'm hoping to have fun here posting and maybe even persuade people over time .....

Who's Sorry Now?

La Shawn asks:

Do you really believe that John Kerry, a war veteran, thinks American troops are dumb or would say so publicly during a war in the midst of an election cycle? When I first heard about his remarks, I knew instinctively that he couldn’t have meant that.”

Yes, La Shawn, I believe it because of the man's history, both past and recent--objective and empirically recognized.

• His 1972 treasonous actions in Paris and his slander of the military before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of the time
• The 2004 election cycle with his chronic tone-deafness to vets and bass-ackwards courting of them, and, most egregiously,
• Accusing the 2006 US Military of the same type of rampant lawlessness in Iraq--as opposed to isolated cases of perfidy--which he says was widescale in Vietnam.

Even his "apology" for the remarks demonstrated the second trait--it didn't come immediately, it wasn't in the same medium as was the defiant "attack" on GWB, it only came after he consulted a weather man to see which way the wind was blowing and it wasn't a real apology. "I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my words" is not an apology and it's no suprise that few military members/veterans are buying it.

That Kerry thought that we would buy the non-apology validates the idea that he was speaking his true mind in the first place. No joke.

(Thanks to Pierre Legrand)