On the road again...

I am headed back out on the road.

I've been saying this for the past couple days... but have been unsuccessful in getting going.

This time I mean it! (Yeah right.)

While on the road I do not have access to the internet.

I expect to be gone for a few weeks.

Nuclear Proliferation again

So much for my euphoria about nonproliferation.

North Korea is going to pull back.

I guess it is a "point of honor" for them.

Yeah right. We sent Jimmy Carter over there to deal with them "honorably" and Jimmy Carter negotiated a deal that gave them just about everything they now demand. Only problem is that the North Koreans dealt with us "dishonorably" they did not live up to their agreement. This is by their own admission. They lied and failed to do what they said they would do.

Now they insist we deal with them as honorable people. Sorry, we have to rely on the truth, the same truth they wipe their feet on. Since North Koreans are not honorable we have to treat them like the liars they are.

Does the truth hurt?

Election Reform

As reported by the New York Times, a bipartisan commission was convened to come up with suggestions for improvements to the American voter system.

This commission was chaired by both Jimmy Carter (we all know who he is) and James A Baker III, who was a top official under both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

"We should have an electoral system," the commission declared, "where registering to vote is convenient, voting is efficient and pleasant, voting machines work properly, fraud is deterred and disputes are handled fairly and expeditiously."

I guess I could piss and whine about what the commission recommends. I do have some problems with what they recommend. But could I have come up with a better recommendation on my own then they have come up with?

OK, I will admit I probably could not. My own recommendation would better satisfy me, but would it satisfy everyone else? What they recommend is not perfect as I would define it, but is it close enough to perfect that we can all live with it?

I think what they propose is a step forward. I imagine they have spent much time thinking about the problems and have more access to the information pertinent then I have access to. Both men, from both sides, are men I respect and admire.

Their suggestions do not solve all the problems. They are only a step forward. I am willing to settle for progress. God knows we need help digging ourselves out of the mess we have currently got ourselves into. Jimmy Carter and James A Baker III have made a suggestion. I am willing to sign up!

Thanks Jimmy, and thank you James.

Nuclear Proliferation

There has been a positive step in the nuclear nonproliferation front! Finally there are signs of progress on the Korean peninsula.

While this sign of hope shouldn't be looked upon as a final resolution, it is progress.

I am not a big fan of George Dubyah Bush, but let us give credit where credit is due. To the Dubyah team I issue a hearty "Well done". At least thus far. I hope if this progress collapses it is not our side that is at fault... but thus far Dubyah deserves a big pat on the back.

Dubyah's insistence on "Six Party Talks" is yielding results!

But now about Iran...

Is Iran wrong to insist upon the right to a peaceful nuclear program? This is what they are supposedly insisting upon. The Dubyah team is unwilling to trust them.

I am going to admit to being torn by this one. If we expect countries to willingly remain in the NonProliferation Treaty (the NPT) shouldn't we then allow them to do that which is not prohibited by the NPT?

But why does Iran insist upon the path they have laid out? The EU has volunteered to provide them with all the nuclear fuel they could possibly need. The EU will take on the responsibility of radioactive disposal and cleanup that will be necessary to process the fuel. Does Iran think they can do the job better then the EU? Do they think they can do a better job of it then Western nations? That they can complete the task without contamination?

Here in the US vast swathes of our land are contaminated by processing nuclear fuels. Our drinking water is contaminated and our citizens have to deal with spending enormous amounts of money trying to clean up contaminated land. No matter how much money we throw at it, this cleanup will not be perfect. Only time, large amounts of time, are going to make these lands fully safe for human habitation once again.

But Iran wants to join the big boys. The only thing that seems to matter is a point of national pride. Iran is going to take great pride at contaminating their own lands instead of allowing the EU to deal with the contamination for them.

Is it possible that Iranian national pride is that voluminous? Well if we look at American national pride... yeah... I guess it could be.

The Iranian President addressed the United Nations on the matter. My understanding is that he volunteered to allow western companies to become deeply involved in the uranium enrichment process. I am fairly certain he understands the employees of these companies can be seeded with CIA informants who will report back on every misstep he (they) try to make.

OK, Iranians insist, as a point of national pride, they be allowed to process nuclear fuel even though it is rather stupid to do so. This conduct is not prohibited by the NPT.

Let's allow Iran to win their way. But let us point out to Iran that their inclusion in the NPT is nonnegotiable. If they attempt or become successful in developing nuclear weapons we will deal with them as we dealt with/deal with North Korea.

If Iran dares to develop nuclear weapons we will take the gloves off! Their nuclear weapons will not save them.

And after Judge Roberts is confirmed...

Sure seems Judge Roberts is going to be confirmed as our next Chief Justice. The Washington Post has come out with an editorial urging his confirmation. If a newspaper like this (hardly a bastion of conservatism) comes out in favor of him...

So who's next. I am pleased that Judge Roberts is going to replace Rehnquist. Now Dubyah, and we as well, can start thinking about who should replace O'connor.

My hope has, for awhile now, been that Dubyah would select Alberto Gonzalez as O'Connor's replacement. This is not asking for Dubyah to make too great a leap. He selected Alberto to be Attorney General after all. Dubyah seems to hold a pretty high opinion of Mr Gonzalez, so why not just tap him as the next nominee?

If this does not happen I'll tell you why. Because it will upset his Christian Conservative base. Days before O'Connor announced her impending retirement the Rev Dobson, on his large Christian Radio network, was beating the bushes trying to get his audience worked up to write to Dubyah about the next nominee. The Rev Dobson seemed to have advance notice that something was up (although he seemed to think it was Rehnquist who would retire). The Rev Dobson also specifically targeted Alberto Gonzalez as being unacceptable as a nominee. You see Alberto is unacceptable to them because while he might be a conservative he has also proven that he would not be an activist judge. For the same reason I find him to be so acceptable, he is unacceptable to the Rev Dobson. Right wing, yes. Activist, no. Despite what the Rev Dobson preaches about how he hates activist judges he has proven that it is not judicial activism he dislikes. He's all in favor of judicial activism, he just wants the activists to come from the right wing.

But let us also explore what is going to happen AFTER we find out who Dubyah is going to tap to replace O'Connor. There are nine Supreme Court Justices after all.

Justice Stevens indicated he felt he could last out the current Bush term. Brave man is that Justice Stevens. He is already 85 years old, and probably deserves to be able to retire and kick back for a little while in his senior years. But nope. He is going to keep his nose to the grind stone and hope the Democrats actually win the next election.

But what happens if the Democrats LOSE the next election? Justice Stevens is going to turn 89 years old shortly after the next President takes office. He is going to be well into his nineties by the time the next term ends. Can Democrats, if they really are concerned about who sits on the Supreme Court, afford to lose another election? If they do, they could be looking at the likes of someone like Dubyah tapping who is going to replace Stevens. We're not going to be talking about replacing a right wing Justice like Rehnquist with another right wing candidate. We're going to be talking about a replacement who really can shake up the balance of power on the Supreme Court.

Justice Stevens might agree, once again, to try to last it out and give the Democrats yet ANOTHER shot at winning an election if, once again, the Democrats lose. However somewhere along the line the law of averages is going to catch up with him. (Knock on wood I hope and pray Justice Stevens has a long life.)

But if Democrats really are concerned about who serves in the Supreme Court (and I agree they should) they better start get serious about coming up with a candidate that can actually win an election. They can filibuster all they want, but it is the Executive Branch that gets to make the nomination. You are never going to see the likes of Dubyah nominating a "liberal lion" to replace the likes of Stevens. Best case is you are going to get a repeat of Judge Roberts. Even Alberto Gonzalez is unacceptable.

So what should Democrats do about it? Well if Democrats are serious about winning an election they can read my "Election 2008" post that I put up a few days ago. They can try actually nominating someone who stands a chance of winning an election!

Katrina Taxes

Dubyah says he is not going to raise taxes to pay for Katrina relief.

From what I have heard, some type of plan is going to be brought forward where other government spending is going to be cut to pay for it.

Yeah right. As much as 300 billion in spending cuts? That will be the day. If 300 billion in cuts can be pushed through Congress then why weren't the cuts made BEFORE Katrina? If there is that much fat in the federal budget why weren't we working the butcher knife before now?

You know how I think we're going to pay for Katrina relief? Well how did Dubyah pay for his tax cuts? He borrowed the money. So once again "borrow and spend" Dubyah is going to be running around with his hand out asking investors to bail him out.

I am not saying we should not spend the money. I might differ on how we go about spending the money, but I do think the money should be spent. If a majority of Americans want to help the victims of Katrina out then I think this same majority should also be in favor of a reasonable and responsible way of paying for it. In my opinion plunking down the federal charge card is not a reasonable and responsible way.

Every dime we borrow is going to have to be repaid one day. We're leaving a tremendous burden for future generations. They are going to have to repay this debt with higher taxes or resort to inflation (possibly hyper inflation) to make the debt more manageable. And yes, they too are also going to have to pay for relief for their own natural disasters.

Dubyah says the economy can not afford an additional tax since taxpayers are already paying a virtual tax in the form of higher energy costs. How about this then Georgie? How about a windfall profits tax on Big Oil? Big Oil has been making money hand over fist due to high prices at the pumps. Big oil companies are about the only ones that have been truly benefiting from the Dubyah economy so let's put our hands into the pockets of those who have benefited most from having you in the Oval Office. We do not have to dig too deeply. Just 300 billion or so.

But I guess I should wake up and snap out of it. Splash some cold water on my face and quit dreaming. George Dubyah is in charge of the dreamland remote control we live by. And with Dubyah in control, our dreams, our nightmares, are gonna be "Buy now and pay later!"

Katrina and Global Warming

If one is not going to be a bigot, one needs to at least consider that Katrina was caused by Global Warming.

Now even if Global Warming is affecting the number and intensity of hurricanes not every hurricane can be blamed on Global Warming. We have had intense hurricanes in the past. Just seems we have recently been seeing more of them.

However some of the experts say the documented increase is just part of a natural cycle that we would be experiencing even if Global Warming was not occurring. Well at least they are ceasing to claim the ridiculous. Now they are no longer trying to claim there is no such thing as Global Warming. I guess this is progress.

Even those that still want us to keep our heads buried in the sand now admit the oceans' average water temperature has risen. So should we expect this shift in ocean temperatures to affect weather patterns? Would this be a realistic expectation? Think about it for yourself. You do not have to be an expert. Even "experts" disagree (which leads to the question Which one is then the expert and which one really the fool?) But what does every common man already know that he can use to judge what the experts have to say?

I am sure you have heard of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. What is the accepted cause of El Nino? Off the coasts of South America, due to yet unexplained reasons, the ocean temperature periodically rises in a localized area and this affects weather patterns all the way up here in North America, right? This is accepted as fact by ALL the experts. So rising ocean water temperatures can affect weather patterns. But "some" experts (and this appears to be a minority of them) look at what also is starting to become accepted fact, that the all around average ocean temperature is rising, and insist that this will not have any effect on weather patterns. So who is the fool?

I recall reading where one large world insurance industry group came up with their own assessment of how Global Warming would affect the future. Their prediction was pretty dire. They say that within 50 years the annual damage due to Global Warming will exceed the annual world Gross Domestic Product. That means if every man, woman and child worked as hard as they could to ONLY repair the damage they will not be able to keep up with it. This prediction did not come from Green Peace, it came from people in the insurance industry who are trying to make a buck off insurance.

So just because "all the experts" can not come to a decision does not mean that you can not come to a decision of your own. Remember, some of these experts are motivated to be contrarians. If everyone else is saying the blue chair is painted blue, the one sure way to get noticed is by being the oddball that insists it really is painted some shade of green.

Ocean temperatures are rising. This rise in temperature is certain to affect weather patterns somehow. It might be impossible to predict exactly how global weather patterns are going to be impacted, but change is sure to happen. Will the changes have to be catastrophic? Not necessarily. The only thing for certain is that they will be different... and I have not been real pleased with the changes I have been noting recently.

And some fools that run around describing themselves as experts say "Don't worry, be happy"!

Hate Crimes

I received an Email from John Conyers. I won't call it SPAM because I asked for it. I want to hear what guys like him have to say.

However John Conyers asked for a response to what he had to say and then did not give a way to respond.

OK. I'll resort to my own way.

I "hate" hate crime legislation. Why? Because it is just so un-American. It is not enough for it to be illegal to punch ANYONE in the nose, some people need special protection.

OK, some people say it is necessary for "special" people to get "special" protection. OK, then I want "special" protection of my own. I have red hair and I have a big mouth. How about special protection for red heads with big mouths then?

The problem with hate crimes is that it leaves some people more vulnerable then others. If we make enforcement and punishment of "some people" more severe for some then it is for others we are turning our backs on the American ideal. A punch in the nose (an assault) on a red head with a big mouth should be equal to, but not more then, a punch in the nose for a black guy with a big mouth. Why should black guys have more right to a big mouth then for a "red headed step child" who happens to be white?

If we are going to keep coming up with "protected groups" of people that are subject to special protections then soon we are going to have a persecuted majority. How dare you be a white guy with blonde hair and at the same time a Southern Baptist? You're fair game.

I do not care why one fellah resorts to punching another in the nose. God knows if someone chooses to punch me in the nose I might deserve it (I will at least admit I have a big mouth.) but isn't the fact that it is illegal to punch ANYONE in the nose enough? Isn't it enough that if you assault ANYONE you will have to deal with the legal system?

Me? Well I have noted that there are no special protections offered to me by the legal system. Me? I am left wondering that if I ever wander through certain neighborhoods perhaps I would best be served by slipping on a pair of high heals while I tread there. Why? Because homosexuals get special protections that I do not get unless I wear the high heels. At least this way I might get the mugger to consider another target. 100 hours of community service for mugging the red head in sneakers vs 10 years in prison for mugging the red head in high heels. Maybe I can get him to choose another target.

Grin.

Israeli PM Sharon addresses the United Nations

Up till now I have not been a fan of Israeli PM Sharon. I am still torn in my opinion of him, however if one is not going to be a bigot (go look up the definition) one does need to keep an open mind.

In addressing the United Nations, PM Sharon said that "the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel does not mean disregarding the rights of others in the land. The Palestinians will always be our neighbors. We respect them, and have no aspirations to rule over them. They are also entitled to freedom and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own."

This quote was lifted from the English version of the JPost. I tried to google a complete text of his speech but couldn't find it. It is interesting to note that there was a wealth of internet entries that opposed allowing Sharon to speak, at all, at the UN, but I at least couldn't find everything he had to say.

Seems that Sharon, in addition to actually DOING the right thing (withdrawing from Gaza), he dares to follow up this ACTION with some promising words said in front of the world body, the United Nations. Now these words could be dismissed by the unreasonable as mere rhetoric. Why do I call them the unreasonable? Because these words come in the wake of the Gaza Withdrawal. But I at least am not going to be a bigot. I am going to reconsider.

The Gaza Withdrawal might be dismissed by some (or many) as insufficient. However there is no denying that it potentially is movement towards peace. Perhaps it is not a perfect step towards peace... let's agree to call it a half of a step. But it is MOVEMENT and PROGRESS towards peace... and progress has been lacking in the peace process in the Middle East recently, unless you want to call movements away from peace, progress.

What will be the Palestinian's response to this half step? The Israelis moved first. Will they answer this half step with a step of their own? (Since the Israelis went first it is fair that two half steps... a FULL step... is expected of them.) What would I expect of the Palestinians? What should WE expect of the Palestinians? How about a cessation of violence?

Israel, under the leadership of Sharon, has proven that their society really will be able to deliver on settlement withdrawal. The majority has proven they can stand up to the minority... a very vocal crowd, but still a minority... that are unwilling to give up on the dream of a greater Israel. This minority is unwilling to give up even one inch. However the majority acted. They have proven they can deliver land for peace... if genuine peace is offered.

Can Palestinians act against those within their society who will never agree to peace and who really do want to "drive the Jews into the sea"?

I am not about to keep putting demands on Israelis when every proposal, every small step, every small action is met with violence. Not just any violence, but violence of the most horrible sort as evidenced in suicide bombers calling upon pizza parlors and nursery schools.

From what I read Sharon's speech was not perfect. He still makes some demands that many might call unreasonable. However look at Palestinian's demands. Are not some of them also unreasonable?

If the Palestinians react to the Gaza Withdrawal with a cessation of violence then perhaps we can finally get around to a resumption of negotiations. There, at the negotiating table, we can maybe iron out the differences.

However neither side is going to get everything they want. Even in proposed "unofficial" settlement agreements, those that even the left might find acceptable such as the Geneva Accords (go google it), include "painful concessions" from BOTH sides.

But if the Palestinians do respond to the potential of peace that is being offered with cessation of violence, then it would be reasonable of them to place some expectations on world society as a whole and American society in particular? If Palestinians lay down the sword and start demonstrating and resorting to civil disobedience to air their grievances it is reasonable for them to expect these grievances will in fact be aired. If American media responds to a cooling of the violence in Israel and Palestine with putting the issue on the back burner... if American media (where what bleeds leads) fails to give Palestinians access and stops reporting on the situation... my guess is that we are not going to make much headway.

What would I point to as being a fair airing of grievances? What would meet my expectations? I'll point to the way NPR (National Public Radio) used to report on the issue. I say "used to" because political pressure has been placed on NPR to "shut up" recently and from what I have heard it looks like the political pressure has been largely successful.

If Palestine DOES cease the violence "we" have got to prove to them that "their side" of things will still be heard. We'll have to prove they will get honest access to the media and that "their side" of things will not be drowned out by a constant barrage of things from "our side"... "our side" being the Israeli side. American society (and again world society as a whole) has got to prove to the Palestinians that nonviolence can work. That we will not forget about them if they lay down the sword.

Drafting Women

I believe women in the armed forces are a good thing.

Yes, their presence does introduce disciplinary problems when young men and young women fail to keep their pants up. I myself took particular umbrage at the introduction of sexual politics into the chain of command.

However, at least in the all volunteer force, women in the military is certainly desirable. All the negatives are outweighed by this: It is better to have a woman who is willing to serve serving in the foxhole or the boiler room then it is to force a man who does not want to be there to serve in her place.

But if women are to be given equal rights in the all volunteer force... if all the negatives can be overcome and dealt with to give them the equal option to serve if they so desire... what about when it comes time for conscription?

Dubyah has not ruled out the use of force against Iran. Negotiations with North Korea are going nowhere. Our all volunteer forces are already stretched thin just supporting Iraq. We better at least start thinking about what type of draft we want if a draft becomes necessary.

If women should be "allowed" to serve in the all volunteer military service then why should they not also then be "forced" to serve in a conscripted service? Everything that can be said about why some woman should not serve can be said about a man. That is unless we are going to premise suitability to serve based on the presence of testicles. If that is true they shouldn't be serving in the all volunteer service either. What about single parent females? The problem should be addressed by what about single parents. There are single parent males just like there are single parent females. In this case, literally, what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

Our nation, during time of peace, decided women should make progress in the all volunteer military forces. Women command military ships at sea. Iraq has proven that there is often no such thing as behind the lines service (and we can point to Vietnam as well). Having taken the step towards equality of service what will we now do? Will we step forward or will we take a step back? We should not, can not, remain in place.

My own opinion is that women should be allowed equality. However with equality comes equal responsibility. 18 year old women (including my own daughter) should have to register for the Selective Service. The time has come.

Cut and Run in Iraq?

First let me state that I opposed the Iraq invasion. I was not completely against it, I just was against it in the way we went about it. If we couldn't win a whole lot more world support (like we had/have in Afghanistan) and a UN sanction then I was against it.

I seem to remember that a majority of Americans opposed the invasion. The last poll that I remember reading about showed that, if one took the "never, ever, under any conditions" group and put them with the "only with a UN sanction" crowd, a majority of Americans opposed President Bush's leadership as he sent us charging in.

However we have had a national Presidential election since then and a majority of Americans did not hold Dubyah accountable with their votes. (This was one of the issues I took into consideration when I decided to vote for Kerry. But Kerry was not saying we should immediately withdraw either.)

Once we got involved in Iraq, I came to the conclusion that we can not cut and run. Why? Because now that we as a nation have been dragged in there kicking and screaming I believe more harm then good will happen as a result of a premature withdrawal.

But now polls have shifted against me. According to MSNBC 65% of Americans want us to at least start to withdraw from Iraq. My question to the majority is this. Where were you back before we invaded? Where were you when back on election day in 2004? Didn't you see what is going on in Iraq as being a possibility back then? I know I did. My fears were that it would be even more of a mess then it has turned out to be.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying we should stay over there forever. We should get out as soon as some form of government and government security forces can stand up to take over from us. However I have seen little evidence that the time has yet arrived. Chances are that when the time comes to withdraw we are not going to be real happy with what we leave behind. What we leave behind is going to be up to the Iraqi people. But if we withdraw prematurely we are going to leave chaos behind... and then yes, some of my worst fears are apt to be realized. Withdrawing early is not going to quench the fires of Islamic terrorism, it is only going to fan the fires.

I agree that invading Iraq was a mistake. But the mistake was made and now we are committed.

And before anyone states "Well, if that is the way you feel, why don't you then serve?" Let me remind you that I have already given 21 years in service in the military. However I did not smugly sit back on past service and actually considered serving again. This time I would serve as a truck driver since these kinds of people are needed and this is what I now do. I abandoned this idea when I happened to meet up with another truck driver who had served over there. Turns out they do not want old farts like me driving trucks. Apparently one must be in perfect health to be willing to risk your life for your country. I couldn't pass the physical required to qualify. (Truthfully, I did have some other problems with the conditions of service, however all this was immaterial since I couldn't qualify anyway.)

So go ahead and change your mind if you want. But when the world gets a whole lot nastier as a result don't claim you were not warned. Here, at least, you will have heard "If we cut and run now, we will never stop running."

Let's finish the job we started. Not necessarily finish it the way Dubyah wants us to finish it (although he seems to be coming around), but finish it none the less.

Roe vs Wade?

Roe vs Wade? This is the Supreme Court decision that we should be concerned about?

People get all wrapped around the axle about Roe vs Wade. Perhaps this really is the decision that most of us concerned about the abortion issue should be worried about. This is the decision that allows a woman to have an abortion under "some" circumstances but not "all" circumstances. "We" do not want abortion outlawed, we just want some reasonable restrictions.

However the left wing, pro-abortion (or pro-choice) advocates really should be more concerned about Doe vs Bolton. Roe vs Wade can stand however you are not going to get what you want if Doe vs Bolton is overturned or modified.

Roe vs Wade allows restrictions to be placed upon on-demand abortions. Doe vs Bolton is the decision that allows unrestricted abortions up till the baby passes through the birth canal.

Go google Doe vs Bolton and get an education. Roe vs Wade is downright reasonable (to my way of thinking) in comparison.

Judge Roberts says Roe vs Wade is decided law. But what about Doe vs Bolton? Seems everything has revolved around Roe vs Wade. The real damage (as far as I am concerned) was done through Doe vs Bolton. Judge Roberts has not indicated this (Doe vs Bolton) is decided law. Here (Doe vs Bolton) lies the REAL threat to the agenda of uncompromising left wing idealists.

I hope the potential of damage is realized in the Supreme Court by further exploring what this decision (Doe vs Bolton) means.

It amazes me that the left wing does not realize the real threat to their position. They can keep Roe vs Wade standing and still have their position undermined. Roe vs Wade can stand and still they can lose.

Election 2008

Democrats, in selecting Kerry as their candidate for the last election, supposedly settled upon electability. How about they settle for real electability next time around?

Virginia Democrat Mark Warner has expressed an interest in making a run for President. While he is not well known (yet?) he would indeed be a formidable candidate. Will Democrats reap the harvest that is offered?

Mark Warner was elected Governor in dark red Virginia. Virginia has been in the habit of electing Republicans for Governor recently. Both Federal Senators are now Republicans since George Allen unseated long serving incumbent Democrat Chuck Robb. The state legislature is dominated by Republicans. What is more, polls within Virginia indicate that if Mark Warner set his sights a little lower, and decided to run for the Senate, he would defeat incumbent Republican George Allen (although I doubt he would fare as well running against the more moderate and longer serving incumbent Republican Senator John Warner). So Mark Warner could probably carry Virginia in a national election. If Kerry had carried Virginia he would be sitting in the Oval Office now. Mark Warner could also be competitive in any number of light red southern and midwestern states, forcing Republicans to spread thin the massive campaign chest they are apt to put together for 2008. Mark Warner potentially could even carry moderate (heavy emphasis on moderate) Democratic candidates for the House and Senate along with him on his coat tails in these same light red states.

Democrats can not afford to "only" split the moderate vote if they want to win a national election. Liberals poll twenty something. Conservatives poll thirty something. Moderates rule while polling Forty-five percent. However Democrats can not expect to win if they only evenly split the moderate vote.

Why not Hillary? Hillary probably has the nomination locked up if she wants it. But that is a shame. Why? Because while Hillary does indeed have name recognition that name recognition comes at a high cost. Many, when they hear the name Hillary, already have formed an extremely negative opinion of her and will not listen to anything she has to say as she stumps. Republicans need not resort to putting a moderate of their own up for election if they face Hillary. They probably can remain competitive with a candidate who serves up strong right wing credentials. I can hear it now, "I don't particularly like what's-his-name but I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary." Would I vote for Hillary? Maybe. She has been trying to position herself as a moderate while talking tough to NARAL and NOW. She also indicated fairly quickly that she was inclined to vote to approve Judge Roberts. My fears that all this is just that though. Positioning. According to the Washington Post at least one liberal advocacy group gives her a 95% favorable rating on her voting record. Not very moderate. Even if Hillary manages to snag my vote and the vote of others like me it might not be enough. I voted for Kerry after all and Kerry still lost.

If Democrats want to actually win an election for once, they might have to settle for the silver ring. Virginia Democrat Mark Warner might be "only" silver, but he might actually win an election. Something to think about isn't it?

But all bets are off if Republicans counter with a moderate of their own. If, for example, they can convince Colin Powell to run for office.... well let's just say Colin Powell would have the potential to turn dark blue states at least a pale shade of pink.

Rebuilding New Orleans

We better not expect wisdom to come out of Washington.

Us American taxpayers are going to be expected to pay the bills for the checks Washington writes. We better give this some thought.

On PBS I watched as environmentalists made their case for saving the Mississippi River Delta wetlands. They made their case that the only way to save New Orleans from continuing hurricane threats was through saving the wetlands.

But, oops, due to Global Warming these same wetlands are going to be inundated. If the only way to save New Orleans is to save the wetlands then New Orleans is a basket case.

Will we show a little bit of wisdom when it comes time to rebuild New Orleans? Just how much of New Orleans should really be rebuilt? New Orleans is already below sea level and the sea level, due to global warming, is rising. Will America react to a world that is changing or will we put our heads into the sand?

What has happened in New Orleans is apt to happen again and again in multiple population centers as America learns to deal with rising sea levels.

America can shake her fists in the eye of Mother Nature if we want... but we better give it some thought when it comes time to write the check.

If we are going to spend billions of dollars, perhaps we should spend it on higher ground.

My first link

I have provided the first link from my blog.

It is to Boris Epstein's "Building a Pyramid".

Boris is a little left wing for my tastes... however if you want a taste of the left... Boris is caviar.

Even though I think his opinions are sometimes a bunch of hooey... I know his heart is in the right place. He's a good man. Sometimes he has rediculous opinions... grin... but he is a good man nevertheless.

I would call Boris my friend, however I do not want to offend him.

Jesus Exposed

They preach Jesus is the perfect sacrifice, unstained by sin. They also preach that the Bible is infallible, the perfect Word of God.

But what happens if we blow the dust off our Bibles and crack them open for ourselves? Not just any part of the Bible, but the Gospels themselves.

Please join me in turning to Luke Chapter 16 beginning with the first verse. Here we will find the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. I am not going to recount the entire thing to you. For that you will have to read it for yourself (which I encourage you to do). But here is a condensed version:

A man, fearing being fired, conspires against his employer to steal from him. Nowadays we would call him a thief. However when his employer (standing in for Jesus) finds out he commends him for being shrewd (the Catholic Bible uses the word "prudent"). Now please note that the employee is not being dishonest for some noble cause like feeding starving orphans or saving needy widows. He is only motivated by the need for personal gain. In fact it is specifically addressed how the man is too lazy to do manual labor.

Seems we have found a blemish in Jesus's otherwise perfect record.

However it would not be too hard to rationally come to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed perfect... it is just the Bible, and even the Gospels themselves that are imperfect. Many (most?) of Jesus's parables were recounted in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This particular one is found only in Luke. Perhaps the problem is not with Jesus but with the Gospel according to Luke.

So the next time you run into that Fire and Brimstone preacher you might ask him for his opinion about the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. Watch for the reaction of your preacher. You might learn a lot about him as he starts to stutter and stammer. If he does not start to stutter and stammer you will have your answer about your preacher.

Anyone who, after reading Luke Chapter 16, insists on BOTH perfect Jesus and perfect Bible has a problem. Of course this could help to explain the actions of some Preachers. It is OK to be dishonest while in the service of Jesus. Jesus himself gave them permission. Go read Luke Chapter 16.

Who am I?

Who am I?

Well, I am a retired Navy CPO. I did nearly 21 years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club. Most of the time I was responsible for maintaining Radars, although my experience in the Navy was a little more varied then that.

Since the little retirement check I get from the US Government is not enough to live on let alone enough to put my kids through college I have taken up a second career. I bought a truck (an 18 wheeler tractor) and now I am a self employed truck driver.

I am married (more or less happily) with three kids. I would just say happily married if I was not pretty certain my wife would disagree with me. I am happy with her, however I must confess I do not treat my wife half as well as she deserves to be treated. I struck gold when I got my woman to say yes!

That is a pretty good start on describing myself.

Screaming into the wind

I awoke today and tried to check out my favorite site on the web, ParMedia.

I received the dreaded message "This page cannot be displayed". Perhaps Parmedia is down only for maintenance, or perhaps it is gone for good. The ParMedia Team has been hinting that the site would be taken down. However they also told us there would be some warning.

I enjoyed ParMedia. The concept was simple enough. The idea should have worked. Something along the same lines worked for the "right wing" crowd at Free Republic. I wonder what ParMedia did wrong that it was not successful?

So if I want to get my thoughts "out there" I guess I am going to have to resort to a blog.

Probably no one will read my little blog... but I will have the satisfaction of writing it just the same.

At least I will not have to worry about censorship here. I can say (within reason) anything I want. Ain't America great!