GraniteGrok

Woodward is teaching two courses this fall. PSYC 571 is described as an "historical introduction to some of the great psychologists and their classic works." The other course, PSYC 791, is a course that Woodward says he conceived a decade ago called "Psychology and Race."

.

In that course, he says, he introduces his 9/11 theory during a particular class session devoted to the subject of "state terrorism vs. individual terrorism."

.

Woodward said he shows a clip, roughly 10 minutes in length, from a film called "The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw." The film, produced and narrated by Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker, contends the U.S. government's account of the 9/11 attacks is "the overarching fiction and crime and coverup of our time."

.

In the film, Zwicker claims the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and the attack on Pearl Harbor "all involved secretly contrived attacks on Americans planned or encouraged by American Presidents."

.

"Many spectacular acts of terrorism are fearsome fakeries carried out by cabals within governments," Zwicker says. "And I mean our own governments."

the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel is not the end of this conflict, but just the beginning. We can make this one different, lasting. We can make this one work if we move away from our stereotypes and start seeing each other as human beings, and learn to empathize.

Posted by Doug at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

I've done a number of Posts lately (here, here, here, and here; Doug and Ken also have "stuff") dealing with the changing nature of war and is the West keeping up.  I was surfing over at WindsOfChange site where the Armed Liberal has a few comments about a Posting over on Global Guerillas by John Robb (got all that?).

Read the latter post - it sums up a lot of what I have been saying, just differently.  However, I do disagree with the following:

Ultimately, western societies will need to learn to live within the limits of this new framework. It is not possible for us to reverse the clock on this trend.

This basically states that the West has locked itself into the style of war, given the political and marketing problems, that we now find ourselves in.  All of what he states about the type of war above this statement is true. 

However, if it is impossible for the West to change, we are doomed.  And while I realize that some institutions will refuse to remake themselves to meet current conditions (at the macro scale, look at the socialism of the EU and their tight controls on commerce and unwillingness to change the welfare system that is dragging it down so), there are those that will change.

One only has to look at how we fought in Afghanistan vs the style of the Soviets.  The latter fought an old style, pound and ground battlefield narrative.  We "danced" (for the lack of a better term, for I am not a military person) using a new style of waging war with our special ops folks directing the "older" (although much better networked) elements of our pound and ground forces.  While the political outcome can be debated (and I think more positive than negative), the military objectives were certainly met.

We can change.  And must.  Or die.

He goes on to point out three areas that the West should avoid:

* Nation-building as a global social policy.
* Collapsing rogue states.
* Escalation of tension.

If the West goes along with his suggestions, again, we will lose.  The overall problem is that it seems that he thinks that we can only fight within our current paradigm.  I believe, at least within the US, we are seeing a willingness to recognize that the nature of war is changing.  Certainly not all folks, just a few, but I hope that the few that recognize it are the ones that matter.  My personal opinion that with his emphasis on "ligher, better, faster" meme, Rumsfield is one that gets it.  Certainly Tommy Franks "got it", so as long as our political leaders in this area "get it", I have hope.

Meanwhile, back to the Armed Liberal and his response to Robb's article.  He points out near the end of his post:

Robb doesn't believe that we can drop the restraints (as above). I know that we can, and wonder if we will choose to. That's a discussion well worth having.

I agree - that is the nub of the equation.  What neither of them discuss is that aspect that I have - the media part of war has now become much more important.  Nowadays, our MSM is so concerned about being seen as not bowing to our government, they bend over backwards and often appear to be always antagonistic rather than "fair".  On the other hand (and other side), their media folks exploit this problem of our media not supporting "our side" and will do what it takes to get their message out (LIKE OURS DID DURING WWII) and are willing to fake what is necessary to support it (re: the staged photographs set up by Hezbullah that did sway public opinion against Israel).

I am hoping with the resulting "egg-on-your-face" on the part of Reuters and the AP that this "accept what is given to us" will stop.  However, being realistic, I feel that unless our media begins to realize that the war is now being fought as an information / propaganda fashion and that THEY are the combatants that now count, we may lose not matter what the military does.

For as of yet, as a group, they don't realize that they are in a fight. 

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have no idea where or how I stumbled across this article, but it has driven me nuts ever since. There are times that I really have to wonder about some people and just where they come up with this stuff. They just seem to want to take things to the nearest cliff and in the process of throwing it off, keep holding on and go over the edge with it (or is that the other way around?).

That just about sums up this whole idea of "white privilege" - over a cliff. I don't mean to make light of what they are talking about - what is wrong is wrong is wrong, period.  Racism of white on black or black on white , or any other combination of white, black, brown, yellow, red, green with blue polka dots (c'mon, I gotta keep this just a bit light hearted) is wrong.  As I have said here on the Grok before, until we all get to the point of being completely color blind, racism isn't going to go away.  Period.  And there are some people that keep it alive on purpose, and some don't mean to but their attempts to get rid of it invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences and end up keepping it alive.

The former are represented by such "power" or "supremacy" groups such as the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and Neo-Nazis.  Without the overt racism that already exists or that they foment, they would be out of business pronto.  Unfortunately, there are also folks that seem to be professionals at this as well.  Even if some may not like it, I put folks like the (Reverends) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton into this group (I'd do the same with white equivalents but I just am running dry on names while I write this - please let me know if you have some).  No way do I put them into the same category as the above hate groups, but their actions and words do keep racism alive despite their words decrying it.

And then there are those think that it is implicitly in all of us, like the author of this article, Elizabeth Bauchner.  It starts out innocently enough:

Last month, my 7-year-old son and I were in the car when he asked me, "Mom, when you grow up, do you get to do whatever you want, or do other people tell you what to do?"

And she's off and heading towards the cliff from there....

Her next paragraph is where I start to have problems:

It just so happens that I've recently been involved in a great deal of anti-racist work in my community and have been thinking a lot about my privilege as a white person. With that in mind, I tried to answer his question.

At this point, I'll be kind and say that she's just approaching the ramp overreaching the cliff - she hasn't jumped yet.

"That's a very interesting question," I told him. "In some ways, it depends a lot on where you're born, how much money you have and what your skin color is."

Never mind, the left foot is now firmly on the ramp. 

So much for egalitarianism for this group.  I have a hard time thinking of what this mother is burdening this son with at the beginning of his life where Mom and Dad know everything ("they wouldn't lie to me, would they?").  Right from the get-go, there is NOTHING in what she listed that he has any control over that can influence his eventual life's outcome.  What ever happened to education, hard work, perseverance (and a bit of luck)?  She has all but told her son - give up now on the notion that you can influence your own life.  How sad.  And how untrue.

Now for the right leg swings forward:

I went on to explain in age-appropriate terms that our country was actually founded by white colonists who enslaved Africans and either killed Native Americans or moved them onto reservations. White people have been opening doors of opportunity for other whites ever since, I told him.

Yup, she's right.  That's all we've ever been and all we will ever amount to as well.  The folks that started this country were all murdering sons of guns trying to keep everyone else face down in the dirt. Let's start his educational career with nothing about America is good - throw it all in the toilet! That whole deal about a better life for one's family...naw.

Sorry, I lost control - only kidding (sorta)!  Umm, how about two anti-examples - what about the abolitionists and the soldiers from the North that gave their lives in the battle to stop slavery?  How about the idea that FRIENDS open doors for other FRIENDS instead?  Why does she HAVE to be race based? 

He gave me a thoughtful look so I continued, explaining that everyone in life has someone telling them what to do — parents, teachers, spouses, bosses.

Ah!  A normal sounding idea - and one that seems to fit into most folks' reality.  Bring that right leg back to the ground.

I added that throughout history, whites in this country took (and were given) the most educational and financial opportunities available, enabling us to essentially do whatever we want.

"You have a lot of traditional privilege in this society, from your skin color and gender, to the fact that your parents and grandparents are educated, and your family has some money," I explained.

Wrong Skip! Never mind about coming back to earth - she's switched from the single leg jump and is going for the double leg push-off!  She's..........airborne! 

Now, not only has she gone racist from the aspect of skin color (white on white), but also his gender as well.  Is there no hope for anyone else?  Calling Colin Powell!  Calling Condi Rice!  Calling Norm Mineta (er, never mind about the last one). Hey N.O.W., where are you when we need you?

This is just plain absurd.  I just can't get over that she truly believes that race is the predominate measure of success in the US.  Then why is the black middle class still expanding?  Why doesn't she take other factors into account for this (just listen to Bill Cosby!)?

"In that sense, I think you will be able to do whatever you want in life,

 Ah, just what I said in the beginning.  Oh, wait (relief on my face) there's a parachute on her back - she's pulling the rip cord...

but it's my personal opinion that people who have privilege should work to make society more equitable."

...and it comes off in her hand. 

Sheesh - I do not know of anyone that I know that could create a sentence like this.  It would be hard enough for me just to figure out how to do this conjunction in a series of paragraphs and make it sound reasonable, but she tried in one sentence.  And to a seven year old. 

Yes, within parameters, anyone chould be able to do most anything, theoretically.  There are no legal limitations here in the US to prevent anyone from trying anything.  What generally comes to the fore is what is each of us going to with what we have?  I'm never going to play in the NBA (even when I was young enough) and since it took a good sized effort to get through multi-variate calculus, I was never destined to be a theoretical physicist either. But that didn't mean that I couldn't try; it meant that I had the ability to try things and the opportunities to fail.  And then pick myself back up and try to find something that suited me better.

And that is the key - it is not outcome at his age, it is the platform to start with.  Yes, those with family money may have a leg up, but that's life - it isn't fair and all of the good will in the world is not going to change that.  it helps if your families have connections, so life isn't fair that way either. But education DOES make a difference (if you choose the right fields) and perseverence even more. I've known a bunch of folks I grew up that were smarter than I am, with families had more money and more connections than I did, and I've done far better in life when factoring everything in.

It also comes down to not thinking that "privilege" is the basis of success.  Believing that will get you nothing, not even a cup of coffee.  Rather, as opposed to her above statement, are you treating other people (whether they are your skin color or not) nicely? 

It can be as simple as just that.

She goes on to more general things from this discussion about her conversation with her young son (and is now traveling at almost terminal velocity as she hurtles towards the bottom of the cliff):

One way in which I have identified quantifiable financial privilege based on skin color is the fact that my father was able to move to the home of his choice in the late 1960s, which happened to be an all-white neighborhood in the Chicago suburbs. There is no doubt in my mind that African-Americans and other people of color were deliberately kept from purchasing homes in my neighborhood.

And she can prove this how?  One instance doesn't a total proof!

My father's ability to move to that neighborhood and start a new business, get a loan and grow his business through word of mouth all had a lot to do with his skin privilege. Sure, his abilities, his math and mapping skills (he was a land surveyor), and his dedication to working steady hours all played a role -- a big role -- as did the economy throughout the 1970s. But it's mainly because of his skin color that he was able to move so easily throughout the wealthier side of society, make connections and network, and acquire the means to comfortably support his wife and three children.

I am amazed at how quickly she assumes and believes that skin color is the determining factor of her father's success even as she lists all of the actual personal attributes of obtaining success here in the US: smarts, working hard and persevering (and yes, the overall economy helps too - trust me, I've been caught on the downside of an economy).  Did she ever think that perhaps being friendly and nice to people had something to do with making connections (especially in a service industry)?  Doesn't she understand that keeping promises in the work place and delivering a quality service and being reliable to and for customer needs are more important for achieving success than almost anything else?

It was my father's skin color that enabled him to essentially do whatever he wanted, as my son wondered about in the car that day.

I'm wondering too, but it's not the same thing as her son did, I bet.

My goal is not to create a sense of guilt, but a sense of accountability, responsibility and hope.

BLAM!  Rock bottom at ground zero. Terminal speed is now zero.

She certainly did fall down in trying to reach her goal - even a quick read shows guilt all over this article, and she shows how much she wants the rest of us to share and wallow in it.  Sorry, not going to happen here.

We all need to be held accountable for our actions and be responsible for what we do or not do.  However, there is no reason in the world to couple those things to overt or covert racism as she so blithly does.  These attributes just ARE and should just BE.  These are the marks of adults and not just those playing at being such. 

She does get one nod from me - she used the word "hope"!  It is this aspect / drive / emotion that has given rise to almost everything else good in the world - a positive (rather than her more than negative wording) emotion - the hope for better and the drive to reach for it.  Hope gets you out of bed to better yourself, do better for one's family, and then looking outward to friends and country. For once hope is in place, people of any color, background, or outlook can move mountains to achieve what they want.  And even if they fail, they can proudly state that they tried.  And then try again at some new hoped for vision.  And that is how we as individuals improve and society progresses.

I do believe she missed the boat by giving her son a guilt lesson instead of a hope lesson.  For it is the ability to dream of better, to hope for better, and then go out and make it happen that is the lesson of America.  

No, not everyone is going to reach their hope and dream - but most will hit many if not most of them.  Remember, NOTHING in life is a guarantee or a sure bet. But that should NEVER keep us from trying.

I know that to some degree, I've tried to be light hearted, bordering on sarcastic....but only to make what I feel are some valid points. Basically, the overall message that I take away from this article is that we (or is that we whites?) can NEVER be free of racism just because of who we are -  our skin color.  Maybe she does feel that way about her self? If so, I do feel sorry for her for putting herself into a jail of her own making. 

I feel REAL sorry for her son who has to be subjected to this self-guilt indocrination.  Better he be taught to IGNORE skin color rather than be taught to hate his own.  Better he be taught the lesson of HOPE, self-reliance, hard work, and being nice to others than this.

A sorry situation indeed.

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Boston Herald, Romney had authority to inspect the Big Dig all along, and simply chose not to:

Gov. Mitt Romney, while angrily decrying Big Dig mismanagement, long ago washed his hands of the project’s oversight, despite a federal agreement that gave his administration the power to annually ensure the tunnels were properly maintained, documents show. …

Federal records obtained by the Herald show that Big Dig bosses, working in coordination with Romney’s MassHighway Department, have been required yearly to verify proper maintenance of the Interstate 90 Seaport connector where a collapse killed a woman.

Direct oversight over the project was transferred from MassHighway to the Turnpike Authority in 1997, although legislation authorizing the move required MassHighway officials to certify the safety of Big Dig tunnels before they were opened to the public, documents show.

However, instead of using that oversight power, MassHighway, under former acting Gov. Jane M. Swift and later Romney, relinquished oversight to the Pike’s Big Dig project director, Michael Lewis, who signed off for MassHighway on the 2003 opening of the I-90 Seaport connector that later collapsed.

There is enough blame to go around for this monstrosity of urban planning, beginning with former House Speaker Tip O’Neill and including virtually every Bay State politician since. And that includes the resplendent present Governor.

The question remains whether or not that sentiment will stick to the would-be Republican presidential candidate. If it ultimately pans out that he is in any way culpable, even indirectly, his path to the White House could become a tougher road to travel than he might have hoped.

Today's BostonChannel.com reports on the lawsuit filed by the "Big Dig" victim's family and includes this statement by the deceased woman's daughter:

"I think there is not just one person that there is to blame for this. I think what happened had happened a long time ago. People did not do their job properly -- people, construction companies, engineers, everyone that had something to do with the tunnel."

Will it be found that the list includes Mitt Romney? Stay tuned...

Previous post on Environmental "Mitt" here.

Posted by Doug at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

From CNN we get this story about Chevron getting tossed out of Chad:

N'DJAMENA, Chad (Reuters) -- Chad ordered U.S. energy giant Chevron and Malaysia's Petronas on Saturday to leave the country within 24 hours for failing to honor tax obligations, in a move apparently motivated by a desire to earn more from its oil.

"From tomorrow, the representatives of Chevron and Petronas must leave Chad and close their offices," Idriss Deby, president of the central African nation, told a government meeting.

OK, I can understand this - if you don't pay, you don't play.  However, as they say on infomercials - "But wait!  There's more!"

The surprise move followed Chad's decision to create a new national oil company, which it said should become a partner in the country's existing oil-producing consortium, led by U.S. major Exxon Mobil and including Chevron and Petronas.

Landlocked Chad, which began pumping crude in 2003, produces around 160,000-170,000 barrel per day but most of its people remain poor.

At 160K barrels per day, figure round number of $70/barrel, that's $4.01 billion a year.  How much is Chad supposed to get of that amount?

Under the 1988 agreement with the foreign consortium, Chad gets 12.5 percent of the wellhead value of total production, before quality discount and the cost of sending it through the pipeline to Cameroon's Kribi terminal.

Well, 12.5% comes out to be....$511 million.  Well, if I was supposed to get that amount, I'd be a tad irritable, too, if it wasn't coming into my bank account!  Throw the bums out!

Oh, wait, there's more!

"In less than three years of exploitation the consortium has earned $5 billion for a $3 billion investment. In contrast, Chad has just received crumbs: $588 million, just 12.5 percent."

OK, what am I missing?  The deal is supposed to be 12.5% - it seems like (taking into account rough numbers), things are ok, right?  So what is he complaining about?  The companies put in $3 billion bucks (more than Chad can afford) to get the oil out, get $5 billion in revenues.  At the recently announced numbers of about 10% profitability, that means the nasty oil companies earned about $500,000,000.  Large numbers, but it means that the oil companies have to get this same rate of production, at the same price / barrel, for another 5 years to cover the cost of the infrastructure ($3 bil).

Now the government of Chad is just taking their property. AND THEY WERE EARNING MORE THAN THE OIL COMPANIES WHO WERE DOING THE WORK!

Oh, there's this:

A Transparency International survey last year ranked Chad the world's most corrupt state

Seems to be epidemic in the African continent.  So where's all the money going?  And does he really think that his government can run the oil industry by itself for long (see Mexico and Venezuela for examples).

Oh, there's this - I guess the massive profiteering-at-the-expense-of-the-American-consumers sized profit kinda gets cut a bit too.  Do ya think we'll see this screetched from the News programs for days on end?

If you think so, I got this little plot of land near the Equator...... 

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From JunkScience (which quotes a lot of scientific studies) - maybe Global Warming, over the really long haul, isn't quite what we think:

That's interesting... "Facing the prospect of rapid warming" - "DURHAM - Fossil trees in Antarctica show us that climate has changed greatly in the past. Suppose the current warming is just part of a longer trend that we can't do anything about? It is worth looking at what we know about global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the past 10,000 years -- the Holocene. That period includes the entire history of organized human society -- culture, trade, language, money, agriculture and cities. If we care about what happens to humans, we should care about changes that are unusual to our history." (William H. Schlesinger, The News & Observer)

... Bill seems rather concerned about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, mostly as a possible driver of dramatic warming. Of particular note, however, are points of reference.

"Independent studies of tree rings and ice cores show that despite some unusual periods, such as the Little Ice Age, 1550 to 1850 A.D., the Earth's mean temperature does not appear to have been more than about 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer or cooler than its long-term average of about 59 degrees."

About 59 °F... that's 15 °C or 288.15 K. The National Climatic Data Center assesses the Global Mean Surface Temperature Estimate for the Base Period 1880 to 2004 (Combined Mean Surface Temp.) as 57.0 °F,  that's ~13.9 °C or 287.05 K (14 °C or 287.15 K seems to be rather more common as the mean from which anomalies are estimated). With estimates of Earth's global mean anomaly for 2005 ranging from +0.4 to +0.8 °C (57.9 - 58.6 °F or 287.55 - 287.95 K) the Earth would appear rather cooler than it's recent long-term average as cited by Schlesinger. If it's still below average, despite measurable increase in carbon dioxide, what's all the excitement about?

If this is right, then what we see is weather changing rapidly but climate changing slowly in trends whose timings and mechanisms we are not entirely clear on.  I am fairly convinced that we are in a warming trend.  I am NOT convinced that human activities are the only items behind this trend.  In fact, I'm not at all convinced that we are the major players at all (and I do not base this just on this factiod). 

However, I do believe that for some, environmentalism has become a religion, and like all religious fanatics, will do almost anything to push their agenda (and taken to the extreme, like ELF, are willing to destroy property not their own and harrass / threaten to kill others).

Posted by Skip at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1

I wish I had seen this earlier (H/T: RightWingNews).

Again, does this signal a willingness to assimilate?

================================================== 

When I saw this first at Michelle Malkin's site, my blood pressure meds failed again.

This has gotten zero attention in the MSM. Over the weekend, militant illegal alien activists marched onto a post office station in Maywood, Calif., and replaced the American flag with a Mexican flag while chanting anti-American epithets. Yup, here we go again. Remember this spring? 

I generally don't go right to the gutter, but are these protesters that STUPID? Do they really believe that doing this is going to convince us that we should just give in to their demands?

Or do they think that WE are that stupid?  

Hmmm, given the support that the MSM gives them, the political correctness "give up-ness" that has taken the place of standing up for what is right and wrong, they may truly believe that we are.

Frankly, I hope not... Go read the whole thing here.

As I have gotten older, and hopefully a bit more wise, I have come to appreciate more and more what a special country, what a unique place, America truly is...

Compared in almost any set of measures, the US is still the best country in the world, and I am truly blessed and fortunate to be here.  Our freedoms and our documents that limit (or should be, anyways) the power and reach of government have created a land of wealth, opportunity and capability that has never been seen before in history.  This is not jingoism, not super-nationalism, but just plain, ordinary pride in our country.

Yet, I have also become a bit wiser in that our style of living, our style of government, can be fragile as well.  This grand experiment that is America is exactly still that, an experiment.  As one trained in biology and computer science, I know full well that not all experiments do not go well, even when carefully nutured and looked after.  Things can go wrong, and the bigger experiment, the worse a negative outcome can get.  Because this experiment is so unique, we must be vigilant in maintaining that balance that allows this experiment to continue on for our children and grandchildren. 

That's why I went bananas last spring when I saw the Mexican flag being flown over an upside down Old Glory during the large illegal immigration marches.  I kept on thinking that if these folks are demanding citizenship and the vote from me, yet continue to wave the flag of their homelands and not the American flag, something is not working here.  Add to that all the signs that proclaimed that California et al belonged to them; it was their right!  That's why in the later marches, the PR "goofs" were fixed; the signs were in English and many more American flags were being waved.  Unfortunately for them, we all saw the real intent in the first marches and ignored the PR.

Yup, trash our national symbol, demand something that isn't theirs to demand, and say it all in Spanish!  Go ahead, see how convincing that will be to me.  Now, "take over" a Post Office, replace my flag with yours, and you think I'm going to support you?

Er, wrong thinking, and not a great way to sway those of us who are citizens to your cause.  Trashing my country does not make you my friend much less getting me to vote for your cause.  Marching in large numbers so as to intimidate just tends to get not the angst going but the anger flowing.

This does not show a love of this country, the willingness to really leave and renounce your former homeland and accept this one.  Remember your homeland, yes.  Remember your heritage (as I do my Swedish and Irish ones).

But be willing to assimilate and immigrate the legal way - show that to me, and I will be the first to stick my hand out in greeting.  

Posted by Skip at 9:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

One of the "perks" of business travel is that the hotels that I stay in often will provide free newspapers; generally USA Today comes to the room's door or one can pick up the Wall Street Journal.  It was in the latter that I found this editorial (paid subscription needed) about healthcare in Canada.

It summarizes the full polls / studies that it references (one by Decima Research and the other by the Fraser Institute) with this:

"More than one in three Canadian households has tried and failed to get timely access to at least one health service within the last three months" 

That doesn't sound too promising for we Americans who want everything yesterday, does it?  "But WAIT" (as the infomercials say), "there's MORE!"    From the excerpt of the Fraser Institute:

The Fraser Institute’s fifteenth annual waiting list survey found that Canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments fell slightly in 2005, making this the first reduction in the total wait for treatment measured in Canada since 1993.

Well, this is encouraging!  Maybe I was being a bit too hasty (having read about delays in Canada and in the United Kingdom where access to universal / socialized medicine is known to be rationed / regulated). 

Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 17.9 weeks in 2004 back to the 17.7 weeks last seen in 2003. This small nationwide improvement in access reflects waiting time decreases in 5 provinces, while concealing increases in waiting time in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

Oh darn!  How long do they wait?

For the mathematically challenged, 17.9 weeks is 125 days while 17.7 weeks is 124 days (think 4 months).  When my doctor said I needed an MRI on Monday, I was in it at the local hospital on Thursday.  There is something to be said for the capitalistic system as applied to healthcare.

Among the provinces, Ontario achieved the shortest total wait in 2005, 16.3 weeks, with Manitoba (16.6 weeks), and Alberta (16.8 weeks) next shortest. Saskatchewan, despite a dramatic 7.8 week reduction in the total wait time, exhibited the longest total wait, 25.5 weeks; the next longest waits were found in New Brunswick (24.5 Weeks) and Newfoundland (22.3 weeks).

I am amazed that ANYONE who is serious about switching our system (which does need help, but obviously not as much as this does!) needs to be cognizant of information like this.  Since the Presidential silly season has begun, the first thing that came to mind was HillaryCare (thankfully a non-starter, TennCare (a disaster that has since shut down for the most part), and the new MassCare (I'm not holding my breath looking for success).

Anyways, back to the editorial's money quote (pun intended):

"At issue here is whether it is better to ration a scarce good using prices, as a free-market system would do, or using time, as is inevitably the case with nationally financed systems."

I guess it will depend on:

• Can you afford it?
• Do you have the luxury of time?

The first means having bucks or insurance; the second means patience.  Which is better for society as a whole?  Ask yourself this question:  if you had real painful ailment (think ruptured disk in your back that would not require emergency care like a broken limb) or a time critical disease ("this tumor / cardiac condition needs attention NOW!"), would you be willing to wait 4 months for treatment to begin?

Posted by Skip at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WASHINGTON — A congressman said Sunday he would ask the U.S. administration to freeze the $230 million aid package to Lebanon proposed by President Bush until the Lebanese government takes control of its borders with Syria and prevents arms smuggling to Hezbollah guerrillas.

Rep. Tom Lantos, the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, spoke after meeting with senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Lantos said he told Olmert the U.S. aid package to Lebanon was important, "but that this package should be withheld until the Lebanese government displays responsibility."

"A porous Syrian-Lebanon border will only invite the repetition of Hezbollah attacks in the future. Hezbollah must not be allowed to rearm again," he said.

Posted by Doug at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TMEW and I ran a daycare center for a while, so when I saw this at TongueTied linking to this story from Australia, I just shook my head:

CHILDCARE workers have been instructed not to use the words "no" and "don't" because it is feared they will stunt a child's development.

The terms "good boy" and "good girl" are also frowned on as they are considered sexist.

The rules -- taught to childcare students -- have angered Australian Family Association campaigners, who say it's another example of out-of-control political correctness.

And that is all it is - political correctness running amok once again.  Kids are going to try EVERYTHING and ANYTHING.  The teachers have to be able to maintain order with their groups - if not, that group can cause utter chaos for the entire center (trust me, we had some teachers that were not up to the job - it takes a VERY special person to do this professionally.  It is NOT baby-sitting and it is NOT just sitting around "playing with the kids".) And while it may not be "educationally correct" to say "NO!", it is sometimes absolutely necessary.

Why?  Think of a two year old getting ready to whack another one.  Kids will do that, even the nice, quiet ones - and some more than others no matter what you do.  A teacher saying NO loud enough can and often will distract the agressor long enough for the teacher to disrupt that event.

And not using "Boy" or "Girl"?  Er, what are they - Its? 

A Gold Coast childcare worker, who did not want to be named, said staff were told to use alternatives like "stop" to discipline a child so "we don't stunt a child's mental growth".

Foolishness.  Kids need boundaries and  if used properly, the word "no" sets boundaries.  Just like "yes" can set boundaries as well.

 Australian Family Association state secretary Angelique Barr said: "I think people are always looking for new rules to bring in to justify their jobs. 

A hint - she's not talking about the daycare workers either.  While I owned the center, I knew right from the get go that there was no way I could do what my teachers did. 

When it comes right down to it, there is the theoretical educational philosophies and there is the  "we're in the middle of it, not you Professor" common sense that has to meet somewhere in the middle.  Given what I have seen, and some of the behaviors that have to be changed around (or endured), I'd give the nod to those actually doing the work.

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm just hearing about this now...remember the story of Rosa Parks?  Well, here we go again - what a dope!  This time, Ms. Davis (a white school bus driver in Shreveport, LA)  reportedly told some black kids that they had to sit in the back of the bus as the front was for the white kids.

The NAACP is up in arms about it, and I think rightfully so. There is no reason that this should be happening nowadays. Generally, I am skeptical about overt racism being reported for the simple reason that any attempt to do would be quickly be found out, and the person or group committing this crime had to be rather simple-minded. I guess I get a twofer in this story.

Often, I believe, that when race is brought to the forefront and used as a club, it is generally a time to turn over and go back to sleep. One such example is the alleged Duke rape case of the mostly white lacrosse players assaulting a black stripper to “dance” for them. The morality part of this aside (and I think it was wrong for this activity to happen regardless of the races involved). What seems to be coming out in the blogs and MSM is that the case appears to be so full of holes and the stories just from the alleged victim so contradictory, the charge of “race” seems to be collapsing on its face. I really do take Dr. King's words to heart that until we ALL stop seeing race, racism will continue to be there.

However, not so here in this case. If turns out to be true, I hope they throw the book at Ms. Davis. I certainly am very interested to see how the whining and dodging is going to be tried in this case (e.g., lawyers stretching or manufacturing a “reality”).

(H/T: Neal Boortz) 

Posted by Skip at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hume: Yes, and what an appealing faith these thugs must believe Islam is, that conversions have to be effected at the point of a gun.

And what of the argument that all of the ills and troubles that beset the Palestinian people, that lead them to terrorism, are the cause of what they endlessly refer to as the illegal Israeli occupation.

Consider the latest rounds of trouble in Gaza and Lebanon, two places from which Israel has withdrawn.

It has been noted that not for one day after the Israeli pullout from Gaza did the rocket attacks that came from Gaza ever stop. We’re not dealing here with something that is susceptible to a political resolution of the kind of which the State Department and many a president has dreamed.

We’re dealing here with a lawless enemy whose goal far transcends any side-by-side, two-state solution. That isn’t going to do it. We’re dealing with a terrorist, gangland-style enemy, which I think it’s fair to conclude, and this episode only further illustrates it, must be defeated.

Brit Hume is a rare journalist who really seems to "get it" and has an ability to lay it in front of his viewers in an understandable way. Skip and I have both posted many observations on this topic. Go to the "War with Islamofascists" category by clicking here. Go directly here and here for some of our favorites...

Posted by Doug at 9:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All I can say is that, along with many others, that I am in the shape physically I promised myself that I'd never be in, and that I am thankful to the Good Lord above (and my Mom's genes) that my hair has turned grey and not loose.  But when I read this (H/T: GeekPress), I could feel the slump in my shoulders get just a bit more pronounced:

Beloit College's Mindset List for the Class of 2010.

1.     The Soviet Union has never existed and therefore is about as scary as the student union. 
2.     They have known only two presidents.
6.     There has always been only one Germany.
7.    They have never heard anyone actually "ring it up" on a cash register.    
19.     "Google" has always been a verb.
22.     Mr. Rogers, not Walter Cronkite, has always been the most trusted man in America.
36.    They have rarely mailed anything using a stamp.
37.     Brides have always worn white for a first, second, or third wedding.
56.     They have never put their money in a "Savings & Loan."
75.     Professional athletes have always competed in the Olympics. 

Go read the whole list here. Then start shopping for a plastic surgeon.....

Posted by Skip at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Lucianne)

The South Bend Tribune is reporting this story about the first day at school at Morton High School:

HAMMOND (AP) — Fed up with inappropriate outfits, the principal at a high school suspended 128 students on the first day of school as part of a crackdown on dress code violators.

Wednesday’s one-day suspensions came minutes after doors opened at northwestern Indiana’s Morton High School and affected more than 10 percent of the 1,200 students.

The offending attire — including baggy pants, low-cut shirts, tank tops and graphic T-shirts — are banned from classrooms. Students were also cited for cell phone use. 

Hey, didn't anyone get the message?  Or, as it seems to be when some authority figure lays down the law, those affected didn't think anything of it?  However, the story continues in a vein that I was sure was going to follow:

That didn’t stop parents from complaining about the punishments.

Yup, parents.  Let's give them a chance and see if they have any valid claims....

“This takes their first day and makes it traumatic,” said Bridget Lane, whose daughter was suspended for wearing a tank top and layered clothing. “I agree with putting some fear into the kids, but I think this was way too hard-nosed.”

Well, the score for me goes Principal-1, Parent-0!  Boo-hoo, "traumatic" she says.  What was she expecting, a whack on the bottom and tell her to not do it again?  Oops, I raised the specter of spanking in schools (hmmm, it could have a positive impact [pun intended]).  If she wants traumatic, that's what would have happened if one of mine got thrown out for not following a simple rule.

Look, if anything, the parents should be supportive of installing ANY kind of discipline.  And discipline means setting expectations (the school did send out notices in July) and ensuring that the expectations are met (via visual observations in this case), and punishment if the expectations are not met (the suspensions).  Doing anything other than what the school did would show that authority figures are to be mocked and that rules mean nothing.

Here, and over at GilfordGrok (our "local" blog), I take the local Educational-Industrial Complex to task every time I think they deserve it.  This time, the local school deserves kudos for coming up with a common sense policy and then enforcing it.

“I’d be supportive if half the school was sent home, because 99 percent will get the message our schools are for education,” board president Rebecca Ward said. “They don’t need to come in thinking they’re posing for a fashion magazine.”  

Good for the school board!  The students have to learn that actions and decisions have consequences. 

Now, I only have one question - do the teachers and administration have a dress code for professionals that they have to abide by?

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a woman (and I will NOT use the word 'lady" here) that is holed up in the Adalberto United Methodist Church in the Chicago area by the name of Elvira Arellano.  Why?  She is not only an illegal rights activist, she herself is an illegal that has already been deported once from this country.  Although unmarried, she has a seven year old son that is an American citizen as he was born out of wedlock here in the US.  And yes, I point this out for a reason.

While we talked about this on The Advocates radio show this morning, I first read about it in the paper while coming out to San Diego.  I have to say one thing for the Chicago SunTimes - they are showing multiple facets to the story.  While sitting at O'Hair Airport, I read this commentary by Mary Mitchell.  Her point was that although Arellano was trying to connect her situation to the event of Rosa Parks not giving up her seat to move to the back of the bus, Ms. Mitchell correctly points out that Ms. Parks did not break any laws (although I believe she was arrested). 

Not quite the case with Arellano.  From that story:

Arellano is not a victim of an unjust system. She crossed into the U.S. from Mexico in 1997, obtained a fake ID and was caught at the border and returned home. Three days later, she sneaked back into the country and made her way to Washington state, where she managed to get a driver's license. She met her son's father and gave birth to her son in 1998 [note - not married -Skip]. Two years later, Arellano moved to Chicago and again managed to get a fake ID -- a Social Security card -- and landed a job as a cleaning lady at O'Hare Airport. Three years after that, she was caught and pleaded guilty to working under a false Social Security number.

So now you know the back story.  She even got an extension for her deportation - U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin ...both men stepped in in 2003 and secured a one-year extension from deportation on Arellano's behalf. They secured another one-year extension in 2004 and again in 2005

OK, if they want to delay it, I'm sorta OK with it (alright, I'm not at all - but they have the power or pull to get it done) as it is a delay and not an amnesty call.

Now to the other commentary - this is so wrong on so many levels that I am about to explode. 

The other commentary (see here) is by Sue Ontiveros.  She is all in a twitter about this case, but I figured out real quick that she and I do not see eye to eye on this:

Since I first heard about Arellano, the undocumented worker who has taken sanctuary in Adalberto United Methodist Church to avoid deportation to Mexico. 

Let the spin start here.  I can read the rest of the story knowing that Ms. Ontiveros is sympathetic to those that break the law.  In fact, while she does acknowledge the fact that Arellano illegally crossed the border twice, she does the literary version of sweeping it under the rug.  So what has me so steamed up?  This:

What about the rights of her 7-year-old son, Saul, who is an American citizen? We should be concerned about his rights. You start trampling on the rights of one citizen, and where does it end? 

Let's skip the Responsibility part and go right to the Rights part, shall we? It just seems so typical for those of a liberal bent (and I certainly see more Liberals excusing illegal behavior more than I do Conservatives).  And this is what this is all about - the responsibility to respect and obey the law.  Or the lack thereof.

I am in the camp that says if you come here illegally and then have a child, that child should not become a US citizen.  Lots of other countries enforce it that way, and I think that this one should change its laws in this area as well (and if you look at it, the current law does have the wiggle room to be interpreted such this could be true).  Be that as it may, he is a citizen.  Right now, no one is questioning his rights.  No one is threatening to take his citizenship away (and given how the law is right now, he should be grandfathered even if it is changed).  So what's the problem?

So I was glad to see that a petition is being filed in federal court to vacate her deportation.

No, Ms. Ontiveros should not be glad.  She is aiding and abetting someone who has already been convicted of a crime.  This illegal broke the law multiple times (e.g., illegally crossed over the border twice, gave false testimony to obtain and use a fake ID, moved around the country illegally [no visa], broke the SS laws by illegally using someone else's SS number, and is defying a deportation order).  Given her status as an illegal and her socio-economic status as a cleaning lady probably means that she, as an illegal, was gaming the "safety net" to boot, costing legal taxpayers money. 

The petition says that because Arellano and Saul have no other family members in the United States who could take care of the 7-year-old if she were deported, what will happen is the United States will be deporting a U.S. citizen, too

Here's where the spin continues.   And here is where Ms. Ontiveros wants to forget one of the most basic laws there is:  actions and decisions have consequences.  Often, wrong and bad decisions are going to involved innocents.  No matter how you look at it, Arellano, as a parent, has made illegal decisions that have adversly affected her son.  Ms Ontiveros expects us, using pure, raw, emotion to make her case, to throw in the towel and let Arellano off without even a token hand slap. 

Arellano is responsible for her decision. The hard, cold fact is that Arellano and her son do not have to be split up.  I am quite sure that if the deportation hearing goes the way it should, they would allow and pay the cost of sending Saul back to Mexico with his mom; this would not be a deportation but an act of kindness.  Or, he would become the ward of US.

What Ms. Ontiveros fails to mention that even if he accompanies his mom back to Mexico, he loses no rights.  He still remains an American citizen, with all rights and responsibilities thereof. 

Because that is exactly what we'll be seeing: an American citizen forced to leave the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. A child will have to choose between mom and his country of birth, the United States. That's homeland security? I don't think so 

This is NOT deporting Saul.  And NO, the child, being a minor, cannot chose in this case - his mother will have that responsibility (if a judge does not take it away from her).  And again, ignoring the rule of law for the never-never land of ruled by emotion is just plain wrong.  Frankly, he should go with his mom - any anger he should have should be aimed not at the US but at his mom who put him into this situation willingly.  She knew the odds and she knew the consequences; she ignored the former and now has to pay the latter.  And YES IT IS, homeland security - illegals are just that and by definition, should not be here.

Saul and Elvira Arellano are just the public faces of a situation that is a reality in many homes across the United States...These are American children who, just like Citizen Saul, worry every day that Mom or Dad or both parents will be plucked away from them just like that. This, in the country that loves to drape itself in "family values." Where is the value of ripping American citizens away from their parents?

Pure numbers does not make it right.  Just as we saw huge crowds protesting to be declared legal and to be able to vote, we have legal processes to follow.  Until the law is changed, it should be followed.  I take quite the exception to the last sentence above - NO ONE IS RIPPING KIDS AWAY FROM PARENTS! And again, let's be honest and truthful here, it IS the fault of the parents to have put in this situation knowing what might happen.

Again, for the slow among you that disagree with me - the parents are responsible for this sad situation, not US law.  If the parents are upstanding and love their kids, they will take their kids, go back to where they came from, and come back LEGALLY.  It may take a long time to get the proper paperwork and approvals done and done right, but it will help that their offspring are citizens.  And when they come back LEGALLY, I will be most happy to shake their hands and truly welcome them to America.

Until then, we cannot ignore and dismiss illegal activity for the sake of the innocents. For if we do in this case, why not in all other areas as well?

For every comfortable U.S. citizen who tells me that, I wonder, how would you react if you and your family were so poor and hungry and just to the north there were jobs to end that misery? Desperate people do desperate things, especially with opportunity so close they can almost touch it.

Sorry, I may sound like a broken record, but just because desperate people are desperate, that doesn't make it OK or legal.  Life is cruel and life is cold - that is the nature of life.  Yes, we can make it better for some (not all), but ignoring our laws is not going to make it better for them - just worse for the rest of us.  Allowing this to happen will not thaw my heart - it will just harden it   especially since sympathizers keep hitting us over the heads with stories just like this - at some point, I got tired of people doing just what they wanted to do - and the rest of us end up paying for it one way or another.

We are a nation ruled by laws.  Thankfully, not by emotion (although I am beginning to wonder).

Posted by Skip at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Relations between the United States and France had cooled in the aftermath of World War I. A number of issues had driven the former allies apart, including:

• residual tensions from hard bargaining and perceived double-dealing at Versailles;
• the continuing effort of the U.S. to collect the full amount of war debts incurred by hard-pressed France;
• the embarrassment felt by France because of being assigned a lesser naval role at the Washington Conference (1921);
• the recent failure, regretted by both nations, of the Geneva Conference (1927).

An effort was made by French foreign minister Aristide Briand to warm-up relations between the two former allies. Columbia University professor James T. Shotwell met with Briand in France and suggested that a bilateral treaty be negotiated that would outlaw war between the two nations. Briand seized this idea and presented it in an open letter to the American people.

The Coolidge government, at least initially, was not interested in having its hand forced in diplomatic matters and offered no response. A few weeks later, Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler sounded the same theme in a letter published in The New York Times. The press in New York and elsewhere began a drumbeat calling for the “outlawry of war.”

Even back then, the news media and their ideological comrades in acedemia espoused silly, utopian notions that failed in the face of reality.

Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg was lukewarm to the idea, but at least gave formal recognition to Briand’s proposal. Meanwhile, public sentiment continued to build. A leader in this effort was Senator William E. Borah of Idaho, who secured the support of the National Grange; its petitions supporting the proposed agreement contained more than two million signatures and increased the pressure on the government. Kellogg began to see advantages in such an agreement, but insisted that the concept be expanded to encompass many nations.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact provided for outlawing war as an “an instrument of national policy,” and was further notable for the following:

• No enforcement mechanism was provided for changing the behavior of warring signatories.
• The agreement was interpreted by most of the signatories to permit “defensive” war.
• No expiration date was provided.
• No provision existed for amending the agreement was included.

Despite these shortcomings, the pact was signed in August 1928 by 15 nations. In the following months, more than 60 countries joined in this renunciation of war.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee studied the matter and issued a report that maintained that the pact did not impair the nation’s ability to act to protect the Monroe Doctrine. Having cleared that hurdle, the full Senate voted 85 to one for ratification. Despite the lopsided tally, little true enthusiasm existed for the highly idealistic agreement. Other nations followed the U.S. lead by ratifying the treaty, but reserving the right to act to protect their special interests.

Events of the 1930s demonstrated the total inability of treaties to halt expansionist nations from making war on their neighbors, proving the skeptics to have been correct. Most damaging perhaps for the United States was that the Kellogg-Briand Pact may have induced some in positions of authority to delay action in the face of aggression, hoping in vain that the terms of the agreement would be honored.

Times never change. Only the names and dates.

Posted by Doug at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Just saw at Michelle Malkin's site that the two Fox reporters, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wigg, are now free.  Go read it - find out how they were treated. 

I am concerned about one thing:

Both of the men were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, Centanni said.

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

I certainly have a hard time with a gunpoint conversion.  Although I am of the Christian faith, I would have no allusions of real belief for anyone forced to "convert" to Christianity at the end of a gun barrel.  I do wonder if the Islamiscts really believe that this conversion was real, or just a face saving stunt to allow them to let the reporters go.

On the other hand, the ideology of Islam is that once you're in, you're in for life. Given the stories that we have seen about those that have converted from Islam to Christianity (let's kill them), how soon might it be that we see a fatwa issued once Centanni and Wigg show signs that their conversion "didn't quite take"?

Posted by Skip at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Great, just flippin' great.  I thought that ONE professor trying this was enough.  At least I could understand the "why" part - that ONE was located in Madison, WI - an very liberal part of the Wisconsin state sponsored higher education system.  There, he has created quite for firestorm for wanting to teach a class (and I am specifically not mentioning his name - I have no intention of furthering his fame) - with the results that a lot of the politicos there are trying to cut the funding.

I understand and believe that free speech is one of our most cherished rights and a foundational peice of our governmental system.  If this "building block" is removed, a lot more will come tumbling down rather quickly.  Also, we know and recognized that free speech is not free - it has to be defended constantly, even within our own system.

That said, I do not want my tax dollars supporting this guy.  The Manchester Union Leader (the main paper of record here in NH) has this story about another professor teaching at UNH, William Woodward, is spouting similar stuff:

A tenured professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire believes an "elite" group within the federal government orchestrated the September 11th attacks on America.

William Woodward has already raised that possibility in his classroom and later this year hopes to teach a class that would explore Sept. 11th "in psychological terms -- terms like belief, conspiracy, fear, truth, courage, group dynamics."

And how does he think this was accomplished?

The group contends that "pods" attached to the jet airliners actually steered planes into the Twin Towers and explosives planted inside the buildings were then set off.

The group also has advanced various conspiracy theories about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Woodward told the Sunday News he's convinced "there was a genuine conspiracy on the part of insiders at the highest level of our government." 

And which group, pray tell, does this nutcase belong too?

Woodward, an acknowledged member of several leftwing political action groups, belongs to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Woodward doesn't hide his political views; he's a member of New Hampshire Peace Action and several Seacoast groups that plan anti-war activities and question the official story surrounding Sept. 11th. And he is currently awaiting trial for criminal trespassing, after he and five others who call themselves "the Dover Six" were arrested during a May sit-in at U.S. Rep. Jeb Bradley's office to protest the Iraq war.

His Quaker tradition, Woodward said, compels him to "speak truth to power."

"I know there could be consequences, but if only more people would speak out, then we would have a safer world," he said. "We need to be vigilant."

Do I think UNH should jettison this guy?  No, not yet. Given the fact of his membership in the above groups and his willingness to break the law (the arrest came because Jeb Bradley would meet with them and their collective noses got bent out of shape - how DARE this congressman not meet with us - we DEMAND to talk about peace!).

MY problem is that this kind of theory is in the catagory of "crackpot".  There is no verifiable way that this guy could present reasonable evidence that could support his hypothesis.  In fact, the only obvious evidence in record is that it just seems to continue the long line of professors with too much time on his hands going off the deep end. 

And I do not wish my tax dollars to support this.  If he wants to do this on his OWN time, I'm dandy with that.  If he wants to use his vacation time to go and do any research that he deems necessary, great!  If he uses holidays to go off and give speeches - more power to him.  Let him spend his time and his resources to do this.

But when it comes right down to it, I'm tired of those in the elite Ivory Towers, especially those built and maintained with my tax dollars, attacking the government that maked it possible for them to do what they do, for idiotic causes and reasons.  It is times like these I wish I could "earmark" my tax dollars for specific purposes. 

Why not me able to direct my monies - politicians set up earmarks with our money all the time! 

And can we PLEASE get rid of that stupid phrase "speak power to truth"....what a know-nothing, do-nothing phrase of English..... 

Posted by Skip at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Swiss Army knife on steriods (Picture from OhGizmo)

A mere $1,200 for more functions than you'd ever want!  Description after the break (from GeekPress) 

1. 2.5" 60% Serrated locking blade
2. Nail file, nail cleaner
3. Corkscrew
4. Adjustable pliers with wire crimper and cutter
5. Removable screwdriver bit adapter
6. 2.5" Blade for Official World Scout Knife
7. Spring-loaded, locking needle-nose pliers with wire cutter
8. Removable screwdriver bit holder
9. Phillips head screwdriver bit 0
10. Phillips head screwdriver bit 1
11. Phillips head screwdriver bit 2
12. Flat head screwdriver bit 0.5 mm x 3.5 mm
13. Flat head screwdriver bit 0.6 mm x 4.0 mm
14. Flat head screwdriver bit 1.0 mm x 6.5 mm
15. Magnetized recessed bit holder
16. Double-cut wood saw with ruler (inch & cm)
17. Bike chain rivet setter, removable 5m allen wrench, screwdriver for slotted and Phillips head screws
18. Removable tool for adjusting bike spokes, 10m hexagonal key for nuts
19. Removable 4mm curved allen wrench with Phillips head screwdriver
20. Removable 10mm hexagonal key
21. Patented locking Phillips head screwdriver
22. Universal wrench
23. Laser pointer with 300 ft. range
24. 1.65" Clip point utility blade
25. Metal saw, metal file
26. 4 mm allen wrench
27. 2.5" blade
28. Fine metal file with precision screwdriver
29. Double-cut wood saw
30. Cupped cigar cutter with double-honed edges
31. 12/20-Gauge choke tube tool
32. Watch caseback opening tool
33. Snap shackle
34. Telescopic pointer
35. Compass, straight edge, ruler (in./cm)
36. Mineral crystal magnifier with precision screwdriver
37. 2.4" Springless scissors with serrated, self-sharpening design
38. Shortix key
39. Flashlight
40. Fish scaler, hook disgorger, line guide
41. Micro tool holder
42. Micro tool adapter
43. Micro scraper-straight
44. Reamer
45. Fine fork for watch spring bars
46. Pin punch 1.2 mm
47. Pin punch .8 mm
48. Round needle file
49. Removable tool holder with expandable receptacle
50. Removable tool holder
51. Multi-purpose screwdriver
52. Flat Phillips head screwdriver
53. Flat head screwdriver bit 0.5 mm x 3.5 mm
54. Spring loaded, locking flat nose nose-pliers with wire cutter
55. Phillips head screwdriver bit 0
56. Phillips head screwdriver bit 1
57. Phillips head screwdriver bit 2
58. Flat head screwdriver bit 0.5 mm x 3.5 mm
59. Flat head screwdriver bit 0.6 mm x 4.0 mm
60. Flat head screwdriver bit 1.0 mm x 6.5 mm
61. Can opener
62. Phillips head screwdriver
63. 2.5" Clip point blade
64. Golf club face cleaner
65. 2.4" Round tip blade
66. Patented locking screwdriver, cap lifter, can opener
67. Golf shoe spike wrench
68. Golf divot repair tool
69. Micro straight-curved
70. Special tool holder
71. Phillips head screwdriver 1.5mm
72. Screwdriver 1.2 mm
73. Screwdriver .8 mm
74. Mineral crystal magnifier, fork for watch spring bars, small ruler
75. Removable screwdriver bit holder
76. Magnetized recessed bit holder
77. Tire tread gauge
78. Reamer/awl
79. Patented locking screwdriver, cap lifter, wire stripper
80. Special Key
81. Toothpick
82. Tweezers
83. Adapter
84. Key ring
85. Second key ring

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Your alarm goes off, you hit the snooze and sleep for another 10 minutes.
 He stays up for days on end.
 _________________________ 
 You take a warm shower to help you wake up. 
 He goes days or weeks without running water.
 __________________________ 
 You complain of a "headache", and call in sick. 
He gets shot at as others are hit, and keeps moving forward.
 __________________________ 
 You put on your anti war/don't support the troops shirt, and go meet up
 with your friends. 
 He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.
 __________________________ 
 You make sure you're cell phone is in your pocket. 
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.
 __________________________ 
 You talk trash about your "buddies" that aren't with you. 
 He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.
 __________________________ 
You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls. 
 He walks the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.
 __________________________ 
 You complain about how hot it is. 
He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his
 brow.
 __________________________ 
 You go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got your order
 wrong. 
He doesn't get to eat today.
 __________________________ 
 Your maid makes your bed and washes your clothes. 
He wears the same things for weeks, but makes sure his weapons are clean.
 __________________________ 
 You go to the mall and get your hair redone. 
 He doesn't have time to brush his teeth today.
 __________________________ 
 You're angry because your class ran 5 minutes over. 
He's told he will be held over an extra 2 months.
 __________________________ 
 You call your girlfriend and set a date for tonight. 
 He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.
 __________________________ 
 You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday. 
He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.
 __________________________ 
 You roll your eyes as a baby cries. 
 He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll
 ever meet
 __________________________ 
 You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything. 
 He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers
 why he is fighting.
 __________________________ 
 You hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of men like him. 
 He hears the gunfire, bombs and screams of the wounded.
 __________________________ 
 You see only what the media wants you to see. 
 He sees the broken bodies lying around him.
 __________________________ 
 You are asked to go to the store by your parents. You don't. 
 He does exactly what he is told.
 __________________________ 
 You stay at home and watch TV. 
 He takes whatever time he is given to call, write home, sleep, and eat.
 __________________________ 
 You crawl into your soft bed, with down pillows, and get comfortable. 
 He crawls under a tank for shade and a 5 minute nap, only to be woken by
 gunfire.
 __________________________ 
 You sit there and judge him, saying the world is probably a worse place
 because of men like him.
 
 
 If only there were more men like him!

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,  Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom
 
 
 
 

Posted by Doug at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I found LaShawn Barber's site a while ago and I appreciate what she has to say.  Today, it is some questions that she has posed that caught my eye.  Grrr, great timing.  TMEW and I are at the same crossroad that many boomers have just faced or will be facing soon.  The Eldest was discharged from the Marines a couple of months ago and moved back in.  Yesterday, he moved out - not in a huff, but as a normal course of affairs.  And we've been through this before with him (see here).  My other son is making noises, too, about moving out (making us empty nesters, once again, as he tried this last summer).

Thus, the crossroads bit, as here are the questions:

1) What haven’t you done yet in your life that you’d really like to do someday? Why? Will you do any of those things in the near future? Are you making progress toward them?

2) If you could completely start your life over from scratch, what would you do differently the second time around (if anything)? Why?

3) What do you think you’ll be like when you’re 70, 80, 90, possibly even 100 years old? Where do you think you’ll be living, and what activities do you think you’ll enjoy?

4) What ages do you think have been the best for you so far? Why? What do you think of your current age…are you enjoying it? Are you looking forward to your next birthday?

My responses after the break.  But before you go, put your self in a quizzical - and know that how you respond now is far different than what you will respond in the future.  I can already tell that how I answer now is far different than I would have 20-25 years ago.

Mid-life crisis?  Naw, no crisis, but a perhaps a mid-life contemplation period is in order.  Leave a comment - let me know what you think! 

So here are the questions with my responses.

1) What haven’t you done yet in your life that you’d really like to do someday? Why? Will you do any of those things in the near future? Are you making progress toward them?

I really would like to go to Australia as it has been a source of curiosity for me.  And perhaps Japan.  I'm not planning on accomplishing these in the near term, but still have them on my radar screen.

I did somewhat accomplish another goal - owning my own business, working for myself - when TMEW and I taking over a failing daycare.  Three years later we were just starting to reap the rewards of a lot of hard work, money, and lots of delayed gratification.  Unfortunately, TMEW became ill, so first things came first - we closed it down.  Maybe if this blogging schtick works out....

2) If you could completely start your life over from scratch, what would you do differently the second time around (if anything)? Why?

Forget the Bio degree and would have gone right into Software Eng from the get-go.  While I would have gone to work for the large companies that I did, I would have learned more about "business" in general much earlier. I look back in time now and see several opportunities that I either ignored or didn't persue that I should have.

One thing that I would not change is the woman that I married.  We have had our ups and downs and faced very serious challenges together (most of which will never be discussed here, but suffice it to say, I have seen many other marriages end over them).  While there are things about her that drive me absolutely nuts at times (and am quite sure that I do the same for her), I would still ask "Will you?" and hope that I would hear again "I do".

In this respect, I have been well blessed. 

 

3) What do you think you’ll be like when you’re 70, 80, 90, possibly even 100 years old? Where do you think you’ll be living, and what activities do you think you’ll enjoy?

I want to be able to stay active.  Unfortunately, my body is already starting to break down, so I hope my mind will not follow suit.  I would love to keep on blogging as I have the last few months in order that I might make a difference to at least a couple of people (either in encouraging them or persuading others to shift course).  

I would love to go back to college again - professional student.  And if not, still running the company that I hope comes along!  I don't think that I will ever be like my stepDad that early retired to the rocking chair - I'd go out of my mind!

And I have learned that I like to write, so I hope to do so for quite some time to come, and learn how to do it better with the passing of time.

Probably be living in the same house we've been in for the last 20 years in Central NH where we enjoy all five seasons (yup!  we have "Mud season" that takes place inbetween the time that the last snow melts and greenery arrives).  Mountains all around, the Big Lake 10 minutes away, seacoast 2 hours away, and the big City the same. With high speed Internet, what more would I want?

Why be anywhere else? 

 

4) What ages do you think have been the best for you so far? Why? What do you think of your current age…are you enjoying it? Are you looking forward to your next birthday?

My late 20's / early 30's were fun...starting to achieve success in my career path and with a growing family.  Lots of friends to boot - what not to like? 

However, the years after that, thru the mid 40's - perhaps not so much.  Changes in my industry were tough, and keeping a family afloat during the recession and with "tough situations" was sapping.  But we made it through.

Arrgghh - what a time for this question as I am within months of the the big Five Oh.  Am I looking forward to it?  Well, in one way, no, as it starts to bring up the fact that we all have only a finite amount of time on this ball of mud.  I'm not all that inclinded to want to dwell on that fact just yet, as that event is much closer than not.  It does force me to contemplate that question - achievement or significance?  Have I achieved all that I wanted - no.  Do I still have a shot at some - yes!  Will I be able to do it as well as I might have if I had started earlier - no and yes (and more yes than no as I hope that I have picked up a modicum of wisdom and reasoning over the years that plain youthful brashness and eagerness cannot supplant). And have I made a difference?  One hopes with my sons, yes, but only time will tell.  With my wife - I think so.  Friends - mixed bag. 

Enjoying myself now?  Yes.  It has been a long, hard struggle for TMEW and myself to get here (gosh, I will have been married to the same person for just over half my life:  woo-hoo!), and I am hoping that as I get to stay home more and the responsibilities of having others in the home at the same time go away, TMEW and I will have more time to be a Couple again.  We realize that we will have to work hard at it, as with all of this new found time that our sons had taken up, we have to court each other all over again.

Posted by Skip at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Most of us know about the Mohammad cartoons that were published in Denmark, setting off a firestorm of controversy about non-Muslims creating images Mohammad (supposedly a desecration by many fundamentalist Muslims).

The problem was that is wasn't just a figuratively a firestorm, there were some literal fires along with a bunch of rallies of Muslims spewing hate and generally acting threatening.  Well, now the table has turned

The New York Times is reporting that Iran is now showing cartoons that are anti-Sematic and generally derogatory towards the Jews.

Well, I'm waiting for the ACLU to file suit (they always seem to file suit on behalf of Muslims, right)? to show fairness.  I am also straining to see MSM reports of rioting in Jerusalem and Tel Avi, but I guess they are being pro-Israeli again (snicker) as I haven't seen one item on the tube... 

(H/T: Lucianne). 

Posted by Skip at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Gizmodo, they ask the question "Watch or cell phone: Which do you use to tell the time?"

For me, it was an interesting question.  For a long number of years, I didn't wear a watch as the one I loved that I had bought in Hawaii back in the early 80's died and I never replaced it.  However, it was only a problem when I was out and around outside of a car.  At home I have several timepieces scattered around, several PCs are on most times, the TV is on, and two cable boxes have the time.  When driving around, each car has a clock.  Most places have a clock as well, so there was little practical need for one.  Still isn't, for the most part.

Except I always seem to be with my kids whenever there were no clocks around, so I'd ask them.  Well, I'd get the look - "Dad, stop being so lazy and go get one!", and then I'd find out the time.  Three years ago, my eldest finally had had enough and bought a Citizen Eco-Drive Skyhawk. 

The Skyhawk part is that he bought it while in Pensacola awaiting training as a new Marine - the front plate has a small Blue Angels decal under the crystal and a much larger fitting on the back plate.  It is a large watch and not a lightweight either.  But I have made it a habit that if I go out, it goes on my arm.

The question still stands, however.  My answer is that it is the timepiece of last resort, mostly from a lack of habit. 

Posted by Skip at 6:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Professor: BlackBerry Addiction Lawsuits Likely in Future

Friday , August 25, 2006

TORONTO — Keeping employees on electronic leashes such as laptops, BlackBerries and other devices that keep them constantly connected to the office could soon lead to lawsuits by those who grow addicted to the technology, a U.S. academic warns. In a follow-up to an earlier paper on employees' tech addictions, Gayle Porter, associate professor of management at the Rutgers University School of Business in Camden, N.J., has written a paper that states workers whose personal lives suffer as a result of tech addictions could turn their sights on their employers. "These people that can't keep it within any reasonable parameters and have these problems in their lives at some point may say: 'My life is not all that great. How did this happen? Who can I blame for this?'," Porter, who co-authored the study with two other academics, said in an interview on Thursday. "And they're going to say, 'The company'."

The paper, which is still under review and expected to be published in an academic journal in the near future, highlights the potential for fallout resulting from technologies initially aimed at boosting a company's productivity. But instead of increased efficiency, lawsuits against employers who supply workers with gadgets are "very possible," she says.

.

Research In Motion Ltd.'s (RIMM) BlackBerry wireless device — jokingly dubbed the "CrackBerry" by some — is well known for what some describe as its addictive properties. In most major North American and European cities, businesspeople can be seen gazing nose-down into their BlackBerry screens, tapping out terse e-mails. Porter says she isn't picking on RIM or the BlackBerry in particular, but notes that terms like "CrackBerry" show that "there is, however lightheartedly, some acknowledgment that many people have kind of gotten out of control with using these devices." Others complain of simply being unable to unplug at home, with laptops, e-mails or conference calls keeping them working into the wee hours.

.

Addiction to technology — blamed by critics on the seeming ubiquity of portable e-mail devices, smartphones, cellphones and laptops, coupled with long working hours — is hardly a new phenomenon. But Porter argues litigation could be the next step, as employees seek redress for technology dependence. She predicts companies could use a free-will argument in defending themselves: "They're going to, I would suspect, say that this was an individual choice."

A RIM spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment.

Posted by Ken at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

                      August 29 –     Ken Gorrell of Northfield, NH speaking on:

                      Eyewitness: A Journalist's View of War in Europe, 1936-1942

Posted by Doug at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If I saw this on the street, I'm not sure that I'd want to be the one to try to take it away.  After all, there might be one in the bag.

(H/T: Karen) 

And then there might be one NOT in the bag..... 

And from one politically incorrect bag to another.... 

From the nervous nelly types....

to the very confident types.... 

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, we get a notification of possible terrorism in the air.  By now, most of us have seen the news that a group of passengers on a Northwest Airlines were not exactly behaving well at takeoff - passing cell phones around, unbuckling from their seats.  When the crew decides that they've had enough, the air marshalls took over and the pilot turned the plane back to Schiphol, Netherlands being escorted by Dutch F-16s.

Again, being politically correct, the men were described as being "South Asian" - in other words and being perfectly blunt - Muslim.  Yet, the major media can't take things serious enough to correctly give us the real news.  And remember, it was just a little while ago that the plot to take 10 planeloads of people out of the sky was broken up by those of the same faith.

True to form, who has to trumpet the inequality of the situation?  Yup, CAIR - the Council for American-Islamic Relations (whose founders have ties to terrorist organization) immediately comes to  accuse not those fomenting terror and panic in the skies, but those trying to protect us.  And why am I not surprised that the ACLU is helping out?

LGF points out this Reuters report: 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union and a leading Islamic group on Wednesday accused security officials at New York’s JFK airport of racially profiling Muslims.

Wait a sec here...

A few things come to mind quickly.  One is the story about the boy who cried wolf - crying out that the wolf was coming too many times had the other folks in the story, over time, ignoring him.  Just like when the Italian-American groups were reacting years ago about Italians being discriminated against all the time when the Mafia was being dismantled, I am beginning to believe that CAIR is wearing out its welcome.

It seems that nothing is faster in the universe than the time between another attack by Islamofascists and this group conducting yet one more press conference to decry an on-going or soon-to-be backlash and accusing the rest of us of rascism.  And they hardly ever speak in detail against those that precipitated the actual problem.

Anyways, back to the story:

“The price to pay for racial profiling is too high,” Dennis Parker of the American Civil Liberties Union told a news conference. “All people should be treated in the same way regardless of their race, their ethnicity or their religion.”

The news conference, convened by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, highlighted the case of an Iraqi-born U.S. family, whose members said they were held for six hours, questioned and searched at John F. Kennedy Airport.

Sorry, I have no more tears for this nonsense.  We are so politically correct that we can't even name the enemy (remember the flack Bush took for saying "Islamofascist"?)?  So PC that we cannot do the real work that has to be done?  Let's repeat something from above:

 “The price to pay for racial profiling is too high,"

No, it is not.  There will come a time that we will realize that if we do not do racial and religious profiling in the name of fighting those that wish to enslave or kill us, more of us will die.  I do not wish that part of that price include my life, or the life of my family.  There is truth to the phrase "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of the terrorists lately have been Muslim".  Yes, there will be others (re: Oklahoma bombing) but just like in ordinary life, you cannot use the exceptions to create good policy. I am convinced that we are at war - we need to act like it.  Review your history to see what civil liberties were curtailed ON A TEMPORARY BASIS during war time (and then restored when the war was over).

I think that I can speak for others that if some are inconvenienced to ensure that the rest of us stay safe, so be it.  If a certain segment of the world's population is trying to kill the rest of us, then common sense says to watch that given segment more carefully than others.  That is not to say that the other segments get a free pass, but given constrained resources, it makes sense to concentrate more resources in the troublesome area than those that are not.  THAT is common sense enforcement.  And if that certain segment doesn't like it, start cracking down on those that are causing the problem within your community (e.g., I'm still waiting for that mass of people that I keep hearing about, the moderate Muslims, to rise up and demand a stop to the terror).

The rest of the story: 

Arwa and Sumia Ibrahim and their mother, Nagham Alyaqoubi, said they were held with 200 other people at JFK after returning from holiday in Jordan on Aug. 15, days after Britain foiled a plot to bomb U.S.-bound planes.

The 20-year-old twin sisters, who traveled home via Dubai, said people from several other flights from different countries were also detained. “Of the 200 people required to go through this procedure, we would estimate that 98 percent, if not more, were Arab, South Asian or Muslim,” Sumia Ibrahim said.

“We really do feel our rights were violated as U.S. citizens,” she said. She said she and her sister, who moved to the United States when they were five, were also asked their views on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Being US citizens does not give one an automatic pass at passing through security. Frankly, I appreciate that our officials are finally starting to wake up (now that Norm Mineta is no longer overseeing the TSA) and do the security job right.

The women said U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials took away their passports. They said they felt degraded and humiliated by the whole experience and are considering legal action.

To me, this is just another case of self-importance - it is all about "me and my rights".  Frankly, if the target population looked like me (a white male), I would want my government officials to be profiling guys like me - and I certainly wouldn't feel my rights were being violated.

When it comes down to it, I want to go home at the end of my stay here, and not in a box approaching room temperature. For if that happens, I will have lost any and all of my rights just because Arwa and Sumia don't want to be inconvenienced.  Sorry, you lose.

One way to keep that from happening is to know that the right folks are screening the proper population segment(s) properly.  And if paying more attention  to those that fit the terrorist profile better than me, so be it.

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Brent over at Weekend Pundit has a quick posting about Liberals thinking that taxes that are low.

I like people that put their money where there mouths are. They may be wrong about the cause to which they are giving, but I have to give them credit for following up their rhetoric with cold hard cash.

Unfortunately, Liberals are good about wanting others to give it up, but when given a choice, fail to do themselves which their convictions say that others should do.   Brent tells them what to do here.  I've suggested the same many times.....as have many others.  Guess what?  The results that Brent brings up have been duplicated in many places.

A lack of follow up. 

Actually, give them a full read....good stuff! 

Posted by Skip at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

German authorities have said they have now identified the second of two suspects behind a failed plot to bomb passenger trains but have failed to capture him despite a massive manhunt.

.

The spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office, Frauke-Katrin Scheuten, said Tuesday the suspect had last lived in an apartment in the western German city of Cologne, where two men were captured on security cameras July 31 planting suitcases packed with bombs on regional trains.

.

The bombs were set to detonate 10 minutes before their arrival in the western cities of Hamm near Dortmund and Koblenz, but a technical fault prevented an almost certain bloodbath.

The online version of newsweekly Der Spiegel said that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the domestic intelligence service, was following a lead to a mosque in the northern city of Hamburg because Youssef Mohammed E.H. had a poster of the institution hanging in his dormitory in Kiel.

.

The Imam Ali Mosque is believed to be a meeting point for supporters of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah.

.

A spokesman for the mosque denied any contact with Youssef Mohammed E.H. "We do not know this person at all," he said.

.

Spiegel said that investigators did not see a direct link between the bombing plot and the mosque but hoped to learn more about the suspects by probing its activities.

Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel reported that some of Youssef Mohammed E. H.'s relatives had links to the banned Islamic extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and that the 21-year-old was believed to have been radicalized by the organization, which strives to create an Islamic state.

Posted by Doug at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

-UPDATED---SCROLL DOWN-The Blooming has run its course-

The flower is now in bloom and will last for 2-5 days.

The blooming ended Wednesday.

The curtain fell on "Tilly the Titan yesterday, but not before drawing several thousand people, many of whom returned time and again.

Posted by Doug at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Yup, I'm on the road again...this time I'm in San Diego for a bit, so blogging may be a little bit light until....well, until I want to.

Actually, I could consider myself almost a former road warrior based on empirical evidence - I barely made Premier on United last year, and it is starting to look like I won't for this year. For dedicated road warriors, this is a loss of status; almost a loss of face in front of your traveling peers. You lose the perks - not only on the airline but at your favorite hotel(s) and rental car places. Upgrades of all types slow down or become non-existent. Trust me, sometimes the upgrades are very little things in the grand scheme of life, but it is often it is the little things that can make a big difference from taking a trip from being merely being “endured” to “ok” when away from home.  Sitting up front is nice for this hurting back of mine.  Getting a car upgrade helps too - some of the mid-sized cars nowadays are not much more than a bit of plastic surrounded just a little bit more metal (well, it "tings" like metal when my bags hit it's sides!).  And a bed that is a real bed instead of a slab of granite covered by a sheet is helpful too!

For those who are road warriors, nothing more is needed for explanation - you know what I am talking about. For those that have never been constantly on the road, trust me - business travel is not glamorous if done on a constant basis. On an occasional basis, it can be enjoyable but it will never be classified as tourism. Yeah, “achieving” the higher and higher levels in frequent flier / renter / stayer within the “frequent” crowd is “boast-able”, but it also means another title: “away from family a lot”. And the impact can be more than you think.

One of the most crushing questions came from my eldest son at six years old when he asked me

“Daddy, are you going to work today?”.

My answer, being that it was a Monday, was “yes”. It was his next question that brought me to my knees emotionally:

“Daddy, are you going by car or by plane?”

He knew full well that if I answered the latter, I was going to be gone for a few days.  And yes, he knew before he asked what the answer was, as I already had my travel bags in my hands.  It was hard to go to “work” that day.

Anyways, the “frequent” titles are ones that I gave up gladly, and that makes TMEW most happy. My job now allows me to work much more from home than when that question was asked (isn't the Internet wonderful!).

And soon enough for this trip, I'll be home.

Posted by Skip at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, AUG. 11, 2006….By investing in renewable energy and encouraging conservation, the state can rein in its appetite for fossil fuel consumption, Gov. Mitt Romney said Friday, rolling out a 10-year plan he said could net the state $575 million, shield ratepayers from federal surcharges, and protect the environment.

The plan relies on wind and biomass power for new energy sources, and reduction measures like pricing techniques that reward consumers for avoiding peak hours of electricity use.

Romney opposes the most visible wind power proposal, a 130-turbine development off Cape Cod. Cape Wind is supported by environmentalists, but opposed by many Cape residents.

Plans for a wind farm off of Buzzards Bay may need to be revised after a report from the Romney administration finds the project would violate state law and may threaten an endangered bird species.

Posted by Doug at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

During the Israeli – Hezbullah – Lebanon “conflict”, there were two main opinions being offered as to why it had to be stopped. One was that there had to be a ceasefire to a conflict that could escalate to a major war; thus, the world (think UN) had to put a stop to it. The other opinion was that the only other way to end the conflict was to allow a complete victory to be won, one way or the other.

Those of the first opinion espouse one of two main arguments. The first was that the innocents had to be protected and the only way to do this was to stop the shooting regardless of who started it or who was continuing it, or the ramifications thereof of stopping it. The absence of fighting was the only thing that was of importance. The other argument was that of proportionality – even though Hezbullah had started the action, the conflict had to end as Israel was using much too much force in reacting to Hezbullah initiation of the conflict.

I can appreciate the first sentiment. It is certainly altruistic – thinking of our fellow beings. I can certainly agree that being caught in a war is not a place that I would want to be in, especially when not being one of the combatants or sympathizers. Death, destruction; nothing good happens in a war to innocents. It would be a nice thing to be able to pluck them out of that area, but not practical. Thus, stopping the firing is the next best thing to these set of adherents.

But this reasoning was, and continues to be wrong.

The other reason, proportionality, was also given as a reason for a cessation. Yes “they” admit, Hezbullah tunneled under the Lebanon–Israeli border, killed Israeli soldiers, and kidnapping two more. The camp for this reasoning believes, however, that the reaction of Israel was “too much” - they should not have invaded Lebanon to just retrieve two soldiers. After all, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are some of the best in the world against just a rag tag group of terrorists. This wasn't fair at all!

This reasoning is wrong as well.

The fact that Hezbullah had constantly been lobbing rockets (“but they are only crude unguided rockets!”) for quite some time at Israel's innocents seems to be of no consequence at all to those of either camp. The media seems to have swept this fact under the rug at worst, or mentions it just in passing at best. In fact, it appears that most of the media is most often in favor of Hezbullah (a group that has been declared to be a terrorist organization by the US – its social programs should be irrelevant).

In fact, this conflict seems to have been nothing more than a diversion. The real reason, I feel, for the conflict (other than to tweak Israeli noses) was not for the terrorists to win a military victory but to wage war in the modern fashion. While the military action had (and continues to have) real and immediate consequences, the real war, the modern war, is being waged not on the battlefield but in the media to win public relations war. And it seems that Hezbullah has well manipulated the Western media to show exactly what they have wanted to and has achieved the exact aim it set out to make – shaping the hearts and minds of their enemies - us.

And the West has no clue, and does not how to fight this new kind of war.

One might say that we are! Just as with Rathergate, we have now had Fauxtographygate, where LGF's Charles Johnson has led the charge in showing a few photographs that can be proved to have been Photoshopped (remember the cloned smoke?). From that discovery and the fall out from it, we now know that over 900 pictures withdrawn by Reuters were suspect, and more from the AP. Their sources are now considered to have been Hezbullah sympathizers or members.

Yet, just as with the story of the Korans being flushed down the toilets, the story of torture at Guantanamo, the stories that these photographs gave rise to were false. But the damage has been done. The terrorists (for that is what I will call Hezbullah from here on in) had made their case in the major media. It matters little to the larger world that the bloggers once again have caught falsehoods in action. It doesn't make a whit of difference that those on the Internet can see the truths. What better way to influence world opinion against your enemies than by populating the enemies' media outlets with your personnel?

For even though we bloggers are so into the Internet, most of the world is not. We are the information and commentary junkies – this is what we are and do and, as Fox News says, “at the speed of Live”. We are a new class of nerds.

It is a little different for the rest of the world. While we bloggers have successes, we are just a curiosity - better put, just more odd folks (for now). While we do fight in the arena of ideas and have had our victories, they are somewhat Pyhrric in nature. The “regular folk” still depend on the major media for their news and the ideas that create their values and thinking. Due to this reliance, the terrorists have successfully used our weaknesses, and the media's, to shaped the world's opinion in their favor.

I saw this in my local paper where a Letter to the Editor writer said that we, the United States, were “stubbornly defending Israel's right to bomb civilian infrastructures.” Many others followed suit, hanging on the successful picture painting that Israel was attacking and killing innocents and civilian infrastructure. That picture paints Israel as the bully in this matter.

The facts to this reasoning (Israel being a bully) are just not in evidence. Yet, the images and the terrorist rhetoric and propaganda has taken hold.

No, the sad truth, even now, is that “right” is being over plowed. In answering the charge above, we defend the right of a sovereign nation-state, Israel, to defend itself against a terrorist organization, Hezbullah. That group established itself within a weak nation-state, Lebanon and hijacked Lebanon's foreign policy by waging war on Israel by itself without the consent of the host Lebanese government. Its self-proclaimed end point is nothing less the destruction of Israel (similar to that of Hamas in Gaza).

The highest duty of a nation-state is to protect its citizens. Hezbullah, not the US or Israel, should be the target of the world's scorn, for it was those state-less terrorists that crossed the sovereign border of Israel and killed its citizens and kidnapped two more. Yet, it is Israel, once again, that is taking the brunt of the world's ire. Most believe, I think, that Israel should have just ignored this attack and allow this to happen (after all, what's two soldiers in the grand scheme of things?). Do most in the West even recognize the ramifications of the word “sovereign” in this event? Do we, as a whole society, really support the right of Israel to defend itself?

It is well known that Hezbullah operates its military forces deeply embedded within civilian residential areas for this exact reason. When Israel bombs these military installations while trying to degrade those that are attacking it, Hezbullah is able to blame them solely for any civilian casualties and deaths. While “smart” weapons have done much to alleviate destruction to civilian infrastructure and deaths (compare them to the carpet bombings of WWII or even the Hezbullah rockets aimed specifically at civilian areas), they are not perfect. And the terrorists use this much to their advantage.

I am still waiting for those who called for the ceasefire to propose a better way that Israel can defend itself go after those that violate its borders and kills its citizens? No one want to see people die, but when Hezbullah (or any other person or organization wants something that does not belong to them) are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, things will break and people will die....even those that are blameless, not matter which side of the conflict they are on.

No, the final responsibility for all the death and destruction belongs to Hezbullah and the government of Lebanon (whose leader, President Siniori has praised Hezbullah) that continues to allow terrorists to operate within its borders and citizens.

Hezbullah knows that it would lose a strictly military campaign with Israel if it would withdraw from civilian areas and maintain its bases and wage war similar to Western sensibilities. But it realizes that it can (and is) winning the media war in the West by not doing so. It successfully is showing the civilian woes and not its own complicities in military actions in those areas, even as it is causing that woe. Continuing to do so, and successfully shifting the blame to Israel for being the root cause, will allow it to win its final goal – persuading the West that it is “only” the destruction of Israel.

Where is the outrage of civilized people everywhere when the terrorists do not follow the Geneva Conventions by which we hamstring ourselves? Why do we pat ourselves on the back as “being better than they are” as we fail to recognize how they are winning? Why does the West automatically believe terrorist propaganda over a liberal democratic state that is surrounded by its enemies?

The answer is simple. Again, the West is losing the modern war, the one that counts more than the military one. War is the means to break a peoples' spirit and will to wage war. It used to mean bullets and death.

Now it is pictures and words, for they will stop the bullets from being fired in the first place, even if in self-defense.

No, the ceasefire will not work. There is only way for this conflict to be resolved to actual peace.

Hezbullah has already been caught trying to resupply from Syria, yet it is Israel once again on the hook in the public eye for trying to prevent it with a commando raid. The UN will once again fail at another attempt to broker a peace (even France has acted like France in sending only 400 soldiers after it acted as the “big guy” by brokering the agreement and giving the appearance of leading the peacekeepers). Again, I feel, the UN will field another useless group of people wearing blue helmets that can or will do nothing, solving nothing.

No, a ceasefire to merely save the innocents will not last. A ceasefire to prevent, for now, a larger military war will fail as well. A plea for proportionality will not solve any of the root causes, the sources of the problems.

No, I believe that only an outright military war can establish a final peace. Peace is won when one side or the other can impose its will on the loser, especially when one side refused to negotiate over the most important issue – the existence of a sovereign nation. In this case, only when Israel, this UN created entity, can vanquish its foes will there be peace.

But even Israel has shown that it cannot fight well in this new, modern war. It is not military first and then the propaganda war next. It is now propaganda – military – propaganda. Israel needs to win the hearts and minds, not of its Islamic enemies, but of it's currently pathetic allies – the West. Then, and only then, will the military war be won – through overwhelming force.

And then, and only then, can it win the hearts and minds of those enemies that are left.

Posted by Skip at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Stuart Middle School teacher has been removed from the classroom after he burned two American flags in class Friday as part of a civics lesson, according to Jefferson County Public Schools officials.

.

Dan Holden, who teaches seventh-grade social studies, burned small flags in two different classes Friday and asked students to write an opinion paper about it, district spokeswoman Lauren Roberts said.

.

A teacher in the school district since 1979, Holden has been temporarily reassigned to non-instructional duties pending a district investigation. The district also alerted city fire officials, who are conducting their own investigation.

Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said Holden has “been teaching for many years, and has by all accounts a good teaching record. It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue. To fire someone because of that would be inappropriate,” he said. “It wasn’t like he was taking one side or another.”

Posted by Ken at 5:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The headline in the Daily Mail (UK) screamed:  "Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed."  Leaving aside the minor matter that the British press uses "Asian" to describe anyone with an ethnic background from the region stretching from Turkey to Siberia to Japan to Indonesia - which, while geographically accurate is disingenuously vague given that this vast area is commonly subdivided into places with names like the "Middle East," "Arabian Peninsula," "Indian subcontinent," "Far East," and so forth.   More to the point, the headline uses the inflammatory word "mutiny" to describe what turns out to be a perfectly lawful action by citizens acting rationally and in their own best interests.  After reading the story, it is clear that the irrational actors are government officials who continue to deny what most of us know:  We are at war with fanatics whose ethnicity can be fairly narrowly defined and whose allegiance to a particular religion is absolute.
  
The story is here from the UK based Daily Mail.  Clearly this British Tory official - the "Homeland Security spokesman"! - does not understand the post-9/11 world:

Patrick Mercer, the Tory Homeland Security spokesman, said last night: "This is a victory for terrorists. These people on the flight have been terrorised into behaving irrationally.

"For those unfortunate two men to be victimised because of the colour of their skin is just nonsense."

Would Mercer describe the "Neighborhood Watch" program as nonsense and a victory for thieves?  Citizen vigilance is not irrational.  These passengers scored a victory for the people.  When elected officials fail to act rationally in the face of a deadly threat, when government action is judged ineffectual by the people, it falls to the people to act.  Not as sheep, not as wolves, but to simply act within the law and in their own best interests.  These passengers did not behave irrationally.  Contrary to Mr. Mercer, they did not act merely because the two men in question had skin of a certain shade.  As the article makes clear, these passengers noted odd behavior and inappropriate clothing, and in the context of our deadly clash of civilizations with the Islamic world, took calm and effective action.  This can be dangerous if taken too far, but the Daily Mail news story makes it is clear that these passengers did nothing to threaten the men in question.  They indeed acted rationally, and no harm was done.

I recommend reading the article in the current (September) Yankee magazine about Mike Tuohey, the man who checked Mohamed Atta onto the flight from Portland, Maine to Logan.  ("The Maine Connection" by Mel Allen.)  A quote from Tuohey about his interaction with Atta:  "I thought, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, nobody does.'  I've checked in thousands of people from all over the world, and he's the only one who made me have that reaction."  He now has to live with the second-guessing, the "if only." 

At least one innocent person from that horrible day could not live with herself.  The Yankee magazine article mentions that a woman who worked at the American Airlines counter in Boston that day five years ago committed suicide.  Now our elected leaders seem willing to risk cultural suicide rather than challenge PC orthodoxy.  That is a victory for terrorists, and quite irrational.  But this is the course they've set for our ship of state...Is it time to mutiny?

Posted by Ken at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Upon reading the article entitled, “A call to build” in Sunday’s paper, I found myself both angry and perplexed. When reading that “Members of the Greater Manchester Interfaith Council are hoping that area churchgoers will pitch in to help build New Hampshire’s first mosque,” I nearly fell off my chair. Why would they do such a thing? Time after time, each occurrence of successful or thwarted terror strikes have a common ingredient: a mosque with radicalized members and “imams”- so-called “holy” men. Knowing this, why would we want something like this here in NH? How many mosques have been used throughout the Moslem world as ammo dumps and hideouts for murderous thugs?

The new world war that we find ourselves fighting is against a radical fascist ideology, much like Nazism- only worse. The Germans found their wellspring of support generated from hyper-nationalism and racism, fueled by a charismatic leader. Today’s enemy, the so-called “Islamo- fascists,” have added a final and nearly unstoppable feature to the totalitarian mix: religious fervor. Can you imagine the thought of a Hitler Youth Summer camp somewhere in Manchester circa 1943-44? Such a notion sounds utterly ridiculous, right?

 

The article quotes a local Muslim as hoping that the Interfaith Council’s help in constructing the mosque will help to “open up the minds of the others that don’t know anything of our religion and that have this idea of relating Muslims to terrorists.” Gee, I wonder where such a silly notion like that came from? How dare they have this “idea” of associating terrorism with Muslims! Don’t they know it’s the “religion of peace?” As for the Interfaith Council, they should consider as their next project constructing a Church for Christians and a Synagogue for Jews, with Muslim help, of course, somewhere in the heart of the Islamic world. You know, so that people of THOSE faiths can have a place to worship in over there in THAT part of the world. Make sure you include good washable tiles in order to make cleanup after the beheadings quick and easy…

I sure hope that as a practicing Churchgoer here in NH, none of MY money is making its way to this potentially dangerous project. After September 11th, 2001, ask me if I really care whether I might offend some of NH’s Muslim population. The article says that they (local NH Muslims) “try to speak out against Islamic extremists within their own communities.” Really? How can they “try” to speak against something they continually tell us does not exist? *

Some Granite Staters want nothing to do with a dedicated place for Muslims to pray in New Hampshire. In the age of terrorism, Gilford resident Doug Lambert compared putting a mosque in Manchester to locating a Hitler youth summer camp here during the Holocaust. "How many mosques have been used throughout the (Muslim) world as ammo dumps and hideouts for murderous thugs?" he wrote the New Hampshire Sunday News.

In a phone interview last week, Lambert pointed to investigations that have connected terrorists to mosques. "When you look at what's happening in other parts of the world, mosques seem to be the center of their army," he said.

As I noted in this previous posting, there's always a mosque. That's where the radical ideology gets spread. Our enemies don't need to send their armies- all they do is send the ideology and spread it to receptive minds already here. There is potential for the rise of so-called "homegrown" terrorists  that need not worry about how to sneak into the country- they're already here. The president of the state's Islamic society didn't say much to change my mind:

 Mahboubul Hassan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Manchester, said the Manchester mosque under construction will be a place of religious worship as well as a place for community gatherings, he said. A board of trustees, now made up of nine members including himself, decides who will be in control of the mosque and would take action if problems developed. "I always believe either extreme is not acceptable," Hassan said.

He said he hopes the mosque won't contain radicals. "If there are, they're not in policy making. Everyone has a right to voice whatever opinion they have," he said.

Posted by Doug at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

Something seems to have gone missing in the public square – the notion of feeling shame or guilt by an individual who has done wrong and violated typical social mores of the community, and the local community's lack of use of the valuable tool of shaming / shunning. A tool that used to fit in between normal day to day life and the legal system.

Some might scoff “How quaint – the societal notion of shared morality”! Peer pressure used to be part of the social “law keeping”. While it is still around, its role in keeping coaxing individuals to stay within social norms seems to have disappeared. It's role was to keep both the behavior and offending individual “sub-legal”. An informal way of keeping usually youngsters and young adults in line before crossing that line that required stronger, judicial intervention.

The extreme example shaming was the old Pilgrim notion of the “stocks” - a wooden contraption through which head and arms were locked in place, allowing all in the community to ridicule the “stockee” for his or her transgression. Personal shame of spending time in the stock was thought to be punishment enough to prevent repeat occurrences. While not the worst, this does rank right up there on the ranking system of “judgmentalism”.

I think it is fair to say that the pendulum has swung the other way.

The contemporary example of the lack of shame is to simple watch an episode of the Jerry Springer show. Not only do the people (nope, no use of the words “ladies” and “gentlemen” here) not care that the audience laughs at them, they take offense that anyone should judge their behavior as anything but correct. Not only are they often proud of their activities, they often are clueless as to why the audience is laughing at them or making fun of them.

While there are others that might disagree, I think the impetus for this was rebellious 60's which gave rise to the “If it feels good, do it. If it doesn't hurt anybody, it's 'OK' type” of mentality. Gosh, how I hate that decade...while it gave us the needed Civil Rights movement, it also it gave rise to this ever increasing rise in extreme cynicism, moral nihilism (”does anything really matter?”) and moral relativism (what all kids do when caught doing something wrong – “what about Johnny? Look what he did that was worse!”). The problem is that back then only college kids were relying on that illogical reasoning. Decades later, they are now our current leaders; adults using that same line of reasoning as they did back then. Without being able to concentrate on the single event of malfeasance, it seems that it has given rise to a society that disavows personal responsibility and is in permanent finger-pointing mode.

Shame on thee, but not for me!

We have substituted legalism style morality at the government level and given up the choice of enforced morality at the individual or community level. Non-judgementalism has taken sway and overrun good judgment. We have taken “judge not, less ye be judged” too far to the point of “who are you to judge me” as if to say no one has the authority to set up moral bounds. Yet, we legislate morality every day....it's called laws.

Still, polls show that the majority of Americans still believe in God and a majority attend church at least on an occasional basis. And for most of us, religion does plays a major role by shaping our morality. For most of us, this is where we learn and internalize our sense of right and wrong.

I believe that this is also part of the reason for the rise of the movement to rid God from the public square. For it is only when The source of absolute right and wrong is removed from public discourse can those that wish not to be judged ever be successful. For it is only when God is removed, and His laws left to collect dust, will those that wish to set themselves up as final arbiters of right and wrong be able to successful at declaring and enforcing what THEY wish to be right and wrong.

Yes, shame has lessened as a societal tool. Pop culture enforces this attitude – just look at the language and philosophy of hip-hop and rap where gangster behavior is held in high esteem and women are denigrated as mere sex objects.

Again, when do I think this all started as a mass societal movement (as opposed to fringe elements)? Where did it come from? Try 40 years ago in the nascent Flower Power age. Even Doug's beloved Rock N' Roll, railing against “The Man” fostered a discontent with authority of all types. What started out as a wonderful sun flower has turned into a weed....

Yes, society has lost sight of a valuable tool in its tool belt.....

Posted by Skip at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From a news story from Bloomberg News: 

Iran rejected suspending its uranium enrichment program, the main objective of a European Union-led offer of incentives to which the country is due to give a formal reply tomorrow.

``Under current circumstances, the suspension of uranium enrichment is not possible,'' Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told state-run Fars News.

The Iranian government's reply will be ``very comprehensive and give a suitable opportunity for the West to solve the nuclear dossier through negotiations,'' Saeedi said.

Iran is still playing the West for fools...and why not?  Iran says no, and the West collectively says "OK, you don't like our demand?  Fine, we'll wait for more." The line in the sand started in the grass and lastest one is pretty much at the waterline. 

I think that while there are many that say that the US has to be involved with our allies, that we must be willing to talk to our enemies and negotiate, that President Bush has to stop being the "cowboy". 

Well, I'll tell you.  I may be that dour New England style Yankee, but  the old time Yankees and cowboys have something in common - we both hate the city slickers and their quick talking ways that don't amount to a hill of beans because they refuse to do the heavy work that has to be done. 

After how many years of the EU-3 trying to get Iran to agree to anything, and the situation hasn't changed?

Negotiation will not work when the other side doesn't want to negotiate.  They realize that they can play the EU-3 and now the Security Council for fools, as there's no bite in those dogs' bark. 

As long as there's no real growl and no fanged teeth, the Iranians will continue to get the time they need.  When will the West realize that they are being made sport of?

(H/T: Lucianne.com)

Posted by Skip at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Received this in an email: 

Toiletries don’t commit acts of terrorism.

Muslims do.

So why can’t I take my toothpaste on the plane? How is it that Gatorade is forbidden? Why can’t I have a bottle of water?

Because we aren’t really fighting a war with terror, we are losing a struggle with political correctness. It is not so much the evil of outsiders, it is the cowardice of Americans.

The cowardice that won’t let us call a spade a spade, that makes us all live in an alternate reality, that puts survival secondary to servility. We are fighting World War III with one arm tied behind our back.

Last week was a good example.

A group of two or three dozen fascist Muslims in England and Pakistan plotted to blow up 10 or 12 passenger-laden airliners in transatlantic flight. The purpose was to celebrate and reprise the attacks of September 11. The means was the detonation of explosive liquids disguised as common liquids – like Gatorade or shampoo.

The plot was discovered, followed and – hopefully – foiled by British intelligence with an assist from Americans and Pakistanis. Immediately, new restrictions were put on airline passengers. Because the plotters planned to use liquids, passengers were forbidden to bring liquids onto airplanes.

Not medicines, not crèmes, not drinks, not nothing. Untold hundreds of thousands of airline passengers immediately and indefinitely lost the right to carry liquids or pastes on themselves or in their carry-on luggage.

Which is stupid.

Because Gatorade’s not the problem.

Muslims are the problem.

Can we be honest enough to just admit that for a minute? The plotters uncovered in England were all Muslims. They all had Muslim names. They all but one or two were of Pakistani descent. They were motivated by religious bigotry. They wanted to kill because they were Muslim and they wanted to kill the people they wanted to kill because those people weren’t Muslim.

Yet political correctness forbids us from mentioning that, much less acting upon it.

In fact, on the ABC network news over the weekend, the plotters were called “British Extremists” – as if somehow the fact they were in Great Britain was defining of their extremism. The fact is they were Muslim extremists, but the American media is so in bed with the diversity-training crowd that that fact can’t be mentioned.

Also on American newscasts over the weekend, the story was told of three men buying thousands of disposable and untraceable cell phones, an activity with possible terrorist linkages. Not surprisingly, very few accounts noted that the men were Muslims with Muslim names.

Political correctness has sanitized this fight to such an extent that we are not allowed to even identify the enemy.

Which is not toothpaste.

It is Islam.

An Islam practiced by tens of millions of people around the world and which repeatedly and consistently puts armies and cells of terrorists in action around the world. No doubt there are peace-loving Muslims, it’s just that they have an amazing capacity for keeping a low profile – or demanding that people respect their religion.

Our desire not to offend Muslims and their culture has great potential to cost American lives. Countless American lives.

Here’s what I mean.

Let’s lay aside political correctness for a moment and use scientific analysis. Let’s use reason and logic for just a minute.

For example: How many terrorist acts have been committed involving liquids carried onto airplanes by passengers?

Answer: Zero.

Second question: How many terrorist acts involving airliners have been committed by Muslims?

Answer: All of them.

Third question: Why are we focused on liquids instead of Muslims?

Answer: Beats me.

Why is it that the protection of our airline industry is focused on products, not people? Why is it that we go to such extreme lengths to screen materials, but purposely avoid screening the people who carry them?

Wouldn’t we be safer if we focused our security efforts largely on Muslim passengers? Especially young, male Muslim passengers? Isn’t the fact that every single act of airliner terrorism involved a young, male Muslim relevant?

Does it make sense to take away a mother’s bottle of Children’s Tylenol and a grandmother’s bottle of Coke while at the same time purposely not profiling likely terrorists?

Can’t we be honest enough to admit that profiling potential terrorists by religion, national origin, gender and age is a good idea? Aren’t we bright enough to understand that asking a few extra questions of a young Muslim airline passenger is not the same as pulling over a black man just because he’s driving in a “white” neighborhood?

A group of people was arrested last week for plotting a terrorist attack. They were young Muslim men. Just like the group before that and the group before that and the group before that.

And the group before that.

So, naturally, you can’t take Chapstick on an airplane.

Toiletries don’t commit acts of terrorism.

Muslims do.

Maybe if the government spent less time looking at your carry-on bag and more time looking at young male Muslim passengers we’d all be a lot safer and a lot less inconvenienced.

This isn’t about Gatorade, this is about jihad. It’s time to stop focusing on products and start focusing on people.

People who happen to be Muslim.

Posted by BobM at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From Little Green Footballs:

Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said countries needed to understand that the force wouldn’t be offensive. “It’s not going to go in there and attempt large-scale disarmament,” he said.

Let's see, the newest UN resolution calls for all militias to be disarmed (as well as previous resolutions - they were not honored).  The Lebanese government has said that their army will not disarm Hezbullah.  Now, the UN is saying that its force, contrary to the to resolution that brought this cease-fire (notice that I did not say PEACE!).

Can someone tell me who is going to disarm Hezbullah?  Has the world collectively gotten a case of the no-want-to-see'ms about who is going to do this?  

All I can see in my mind's eye is a group of lay-abouts shuffling their feet backwards, all mummering "er, not me", "can't you pick on someone else this time", "somebody else's turn" and other phrases denoting that they don't want to own the problem.

Which is typical.  Has anyone else noticing the continuing pattern that the UN members get their knickers all in a knot when it comes to talking about and laying blame for something, but grow strangely quiet when the time for action comes nigh?

Fine.  Time to point fingers ->  Hey, EU...time to get your hands dirty.  Time to show that you are adults instead of whining teenagers (or is it pensioners - as in too feeble to do anything).  Or do you have the fortitude to be and act like adults anymore.....

If not, let Israel defend itself and do the job you cannot do anymore. 

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This story from Fox News: 

Countries Pledge 3,500 Troops to U.N. for Lebanon Peacekeeping Force

Friday, August 18, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations got pledges Thursday of 3,500 troops for an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon, but it was unclear whether the soldiers represented the right mix of countries and units and could deploy very quickly.

Bangladesh made the largest offer of up to 2,000 troops but France offered just 400, a disappointment to some who expected more from the country likely to lead the force.

The following was added to a Comment to the Post about Matt McGonagle ( see also here and here). Both Doug and I have discussed this between us and in an email string with the actual author. We have had to do a bit a “re-jiggering” (as I explained it to the author) to make sure of a few things:

• From parts of this, it appears that there is a gag order of some type concerning this case. Information that might pertain to it have been redacted.
• Names and some positions have been redacted.
• Spelling has been corrected.

That said, the Comment had a lot of points that we felt were worth discussing, so much so that we've decided to have it as it's own Post rather than a Comment (even though we may not agree with it all).

Please note that where ever editing was needed meet the above concerns, it is duly noted ( i.e., [redacted -Ed] ). This has been cross-posted over at GilfordGrok.

==========================================

I am compelled to respond to the recent postings on Matt McGonagle and his "guilty" plea to felonious sexual assault against a child.

First of all, shame on The Citizen's online version for calling it "rape", and referring to his victim as plural ("girls" instead of girl) is reckless reporting, in my opinion. Second, those of you who have offered opinions on Matt's case obviously don't know Matt. You don't know anything about this case other than what you've read in the papers. Do you know Matt? Do you know the “victim"? ( Do you know that this "victim" is related to[redacted -Ed]??? HELLO! That might be the first problem. Were you privy to ANY of the behind-the-scenes negotiations between the attorneys?

No. So please listen to what I'm about to say.

McGonagle was falsely accused. Everyone involved in this case knows it, including the prosecution team and the victim.

Anyway, that's not even relevant, but it does shed light. Matt took the deal because his lawyers advised him to. Not to fault his lawyers, but here's why: NH has one of the toughest laws in this country on convicted first time sex offenders. Minimum 15- 25 years state prison if found guilty. Matt had 2 choices: Go to trial, try to prove his innocence against a 20 year old [redacted – Ed] OR, take the 2 yr deal, avoid the publicity, and TRY to salvage whatever may be left of his life once he gets out. Hmmmm.......let me think. I think he made the right decision. Do you have ANY idea how difficult it was for him to plead guilty to something he never did?( Matt does admit to having an improper emotional relationship with the girl and her family. This girl's family invited him into their home on numerous occasions, and provided many an opportunity for them to be alone together, and in fact, encouraged it. In retrospect, it is now crystal clear to him why you should NEVER find yourself alone with a child who is not yours). You couldn't even come close to imagining the horror he and his family went through in the days leading up to this
sentencing hearing, especially once they realized that he would essentially have to take the plea if he wanted to have any life left to live.

Without going into any unnecessary detail right now, I can assure you that the "victim"
certainly has her problems. And that's an understatement. Those residents of Gilford who know her, know the details of this case, and how it went down, WISH we could speak publicly at this time. We can't. We have essentially been SHUT UP, and for right now, we will shut up, but ONLY for the sake of Matt. Matt needs to stay right where he is in the [redacted – Ed]. He needs to do his time and keep a low profile. However, once his sentence has been served, Matt will be able to speak freely about this case. We look forward to that day.

Additionally, let me throw this out. Children, especially teenagers, have all the power these days. They know their rights. They know that all they would have to do to ruin a teacher's life is to accuse them of some sexual deviancy and BAM! It's over. Gone are the days when kids knew that they were in school to learn and that the teacher was the final authority. Have the authors of these commentaries about Matt ever taught school? Try it. Teachers nowadays have to basically kiss their students' [behinds -Ed]. What a sick and twisted country we live in where we've gone so far to "protect" the children that now those same children call all the shots.

Let me further comment on this by using Gilford High School as an example. Anyone who has attended, taught at, or sent their children to GHS knows that what I'm about to say is true. GHS has always had an problem with blurred boundaries between teachers and students. The open-concept classrooms of the 80's certainly started that ball rolling, but even when they began to build walls inside the school, there was/is this unspoken "rule" at GHS: Teachers and Students were friends. Many teachers were called by their first names. Teachers could often be found "hanging out" at students' homes, socializing with their parents. We were often proud of our teacher/student relationships. We thought we were progressive and cutting-edge because the teachers were "cool" and the students were precocious. I can remember SEVERAL teacher/student relationships in the 80's at that school, that if reported and prosecuted, would have landed many a teacher behind bars for years. And I'm not exaggerating.

The climate in NH, and the country for that matter, at that time was not the same. Now, we live in a powder keg environment where even the slightest hint of sexual abuse committed by a teacher means automatic guilt. Every judge, prosecutor, school administrator KNOWS that they had better be tough on child sex crimes or hell, Bill O'Reilly will publicly shame them on his Fox News O'Reilly Factor program! I've seen it! This particular situation with McGonagle and his accuser made Belknap county so scared that they had no choice but to hit him hard. (By the way, his 2 yr deal is further proof that the prosecutors KNOW he's innocent......if they really thought he was guilty, they would have gone straight to trial and put him in jail for a long, long time. But no, they didn't. They knew he was innocent, or at least not guilty of the felony charge, but had to appear that they were "tough on child molesters", so they opted for this deal.)

So for all of you self-appointed morality police, THINK before you opine on stories like this in the future. There's usually more to every story than meets the eye. True, many liberal judges let child molesters off, or with light sentences. Shame on them. I'm no liberal. I am actually a die-hard conservative who wants to protect children. Let me be clear: There is no room in our society for child molesters. They should be ostracized, alienated, humiliated, or whatever it takes to keep them from re-offending and to keep children safe. But Matt McGonagle is NOT a child molester. Not even close. You obviously have never met the man. If you knew him, you would know that there isn't one fiber of his being that would EVER hurt a child. Maybe you should go visit the [redacted – Ed] on visiting day sometime soon to actually meet this "monster" in person.

Posted by Skip at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

They're Baaaaack! That's right- the area, relatively unchanged since the last public transit authority went belly-up due to lack of money and interest, now finds itself with a new public transportation company- (a jobs program for well-connected bus drivers?) but already saddled with the same problems that plagued its predecessor: money- or the lack thereof.

The operators of the new Winnipesaukee Transit System are working to meet the transportation needs of elders whose homes lie outside of the system's government-defined route schedule.

Officials with Community Action Program Belknap-Merrimack Counties say they are trying to use "demand-response" vehicles under their elderly care program to provide door-to-door service to those who live outside of the quarter-mile buffer of the fixed-route Winni-Transit system.

The offshoot of the now-defunct Greater Laconia Transit Agency, or GLTA, started rolling out its buses on Monday, with the goal of providing a more reliable schedule of buses after what has been an extensive effort to consult with residents on what they want in a public transportation system.

The new routes run through Belmont, Laconia, Gilford, Franklin and Tilton

Irene Labrecque, 86, of Belmont is among those who say the new system has made it difficult for her to get the bus. She lives in the Heritage Terrace home for the elderly on Shaker Road in Belmont, which is approximately a half-mile from the Winni-Transit system's Belmont stop in front of the hardware store on Main Street.

Labrecque said the distance might appear small to some people, but she uses a cane and has troubling getting up and down the several hills between her home and the stop.

"That's quite a walk for me. It's going to be even harder in the wintertime," said Labrecque.

Labrecque said another Community Action Plan bus has been picking her up, but she noted that the service is not available on a daily basis.

Posted by Doug at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If the Rolling Stones (and other aged rock stars) have successfully avoided growing up, they have not, as has been duly noted, successfully avoided growing old.

Posted by Doug at 7:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.

Posted by Doug at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

School board member Margo Weeks suggested that the board look into keeping all those students on who wanted to play varsity sports. This stance would effectively do away with cuts for initial varsity team rosters.

"I think kids figure it out after they sit on the bench for a couple of seasons." She noted that this way kids will effectively cut themselves from the teams, rather than having coaches select them to be removed.

Board members were divided on this issue. Though the general consensus was that in not having cuts it could be detrimental to coaching, as well as team effort overall.

It was also pointed out that this type of self removal could harm a students self esteem, if they were forced to remove themselves.

Posted by Doug at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (2)

With my visit to Lancaster and learning more about the Amish, I realize that culture clash is not just the above. The Amish certainly believe that there is a clash between their culture and “normal” American life (though I am wondering what constitutes “normal” nowadays). Yet, they don't want to kill me for being different!

So why the difference? Both are fundamentalist in relation to their sacred texts. They both believe that modern western culture is decadent and immoral. Both believe that they hold to their sacred texts and conventions better than others.  Both often eschew modern learning - one only to the eighth grade and the other that which did not exist back in the Middle Ages. Both withdraw into their own cultures rather than accepting the mores of the overall culture in which they exist.  Both have been descriminated against and their followers killed for their beliefs.

Yet one wishes to be left alone (the Amish) and the other (Islam) wishes for us to convert.  One tolerates me, while the other wishes me to convert or submit.  One wishes to be left alone while the other wants me to agree to abandon my cultural foundations and totally accept theirs.  One would rather ignore me, while the other would kill me.

An open question - why the difference?

Posted by Skip at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I mentioned in my previous post, TMEW and I are in the heart of the Amish country. In looking at their culture, it does make one think about how their lifestyle contrasts with our own. It has demanded of me that I review some of my own fundamental beliefs about how I live my life, and if perhaps, we should learn and apply something from this culture that many look upon as “backward”. Actually, in many ways, they are very much square with conservative philosophies.

Quickly stated, they believe in their faith and their family, and much of their culture is structured around protecting those two important aspects from the ill effects of the outside culture. They feel that much of the modern life is opposed to both of those pillars of their philosophy and have made the deliberate decision to abandon much of what we consider normal life to maintain that focus. In essence, they have refused to compromise their standards. It is not an easy life (for instance, I would not have a livelihood at all!) and quite austere; yet, it works for them.

They are a literate society – although formal education stops after the eighth grade (see my previous post here), they continue to be well read and informed. They are certainly advocates for entrepreneurship – most families own their own business (be they farms or trade businesses). They pay all taxes that we do (unless self-employed – then they do not pay Social Security taxes). And 95% of their businesses succeed versus the “English” (as we are called) average of about 15%. They are a can-do community and are willing to work very hard and very long in order to be successful. Just looking at their farms, I could see the empirical evidence of this – unlike many farms in NH, all of the farmhouses and farm buildings were neat and well taken care of. None were in ramshackle condition.

They are also a helpful community – when someone needs assistance, help arrives. We heard of a number of instances when one of the families lost their barn (and these are not small buildings at all), the community would come in for a “barn raising” - often completing it in a week. Similarly, a new couple will receive the same assistance as they get started.

They eschew insurance – both medical and property. In the former case, they pay cash. If needed, the local church district to which they belong assists with any medical bills. Property insurance – see above).

Oh, the Social Security tax? They may pay it if they work for someone else but when they get to the age where they collect, they refuse. To them, family is important, and they have not lost the lesson that intergenerational families matter. It is expected that when the parents have finished raising their children and become grandparents (families average about seven children), the youngest son will care for his parents. He generally inherits the farm, but will also build an addition to the house that we would call an in-law apartment (again, the community pitches in).

All in all, they stress self-reliance and voluntary community assistance and refuse to be dependent on the government. All in all, they wish to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit

Is it too late to learn German? 

Posted by Skip at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Blogging has been sparse as TMEW and I are on vacation in the heart of the Amish country – Lancaster, PA. Why here? Well, TMEW had read a series of books by Beverly Lewis concerning the Amish culture and wanted to see the people and where they lived. So, here we are.

Unlike some who visit to see the shops and shopping, we took an alternative view of our visit – we wanted to know more about the Amish culture itself versus the culture surrounding it. So, we did a tour. And another. And yet another. Without boring you with details, one thing stood out:

How the Amish youth are educated.

Certainly surprised me!

The Amish (specifically, the Old Order Amish) have won the right with a Supreme Court decision (see here, Wisconsin vs Yoder, 1972), under the First Amendment of freedom of religion, to control the educational process for their children. Thus, Amish youth attend an Amish school until completion of the eighth grade, and then they move into the greater Amish community to become apprentices in the community for the boys or help out in the home for the girls (I bet NOW is not happy!).

One can agree or disagree with this part of their culture of not going further with their education but this is not the point of this Post. It is, however, the HOW of how that education is delivered. There are about 180 one room school houses (complete with the proverbial school bell for each) scattered among the Amish farmhouses. There are anywhere from 30 – 40 students at each school ranging from the first to the eighth grade in that single room. All of the students either walk to the school (generally within a mile or less), “ride” their scooters, or arrive in the traditional horse and buggy. Subjects taught have an emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Discipline is certainly part of process as well, as the teacher is allowed to use corporal punishment to keep order in the classroom. And in this society, where families have an average of seven children, siblings are often in the classroom to observe the infractions so this type of news gets home quickly. Given the emphasis of family life in this culture and that the father is the head of the household, often the correction is repeated, as the parents are involved.

Although schooling ends early, the students are required to meet the same standards that public schools and other home schooled pupils are held to by the State of Pennsylvania. And who teaches these students to such a level?

No, not a teacher that has gone to an accredited college or university and then has then passed a certification exam. Rather, the teacher is an unmarried women, generally 18 – 22, that has only completed the eighth grade herself.

I am not advocating that we replace our teachers with this level of instructor in our schools. However, isn't there a lesson to be learned that successful results can be had when traditional methods are used? That when discipline is a functional part of, and applied correctly, the classroom, better results can be obtained? That some of our “modern” educational theories are just that – theories? They sound good during the discussion phase, but don't pan out when the results are reviewed (think the open classroom philosophy that turned out to be such a bust in Gilford)?

Just some thoughts during vacation....

(cross posted at GilfordGrok) 

Posted by Skip at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

“Scouting helps the Scout to value the great heritage which the past has brought to him in the life and ideals of America… Our America is the ‘melting pot’ of the world. Her strength has come from every people. Good will must be extended to these new citizens, indeed only as ‘the spirit of Brotherliness’ is present, can Liberty develop.”

“adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here … substitutes for his mother tongue the English language and comes into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate[s] with us for their attainment.”

“Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.”

Posted by Doug at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

are investigating allegations that there was a secret sex club at Ozen High School that involved students, alumni and possibly even an employee of the school.

.

The accuser is coming forward 5 years after she says the assault took place. She claims she was part of a group known as "3K" made up of 9th and 10th grade girls who would perform sexual favors for upper class boys.

A middle school teacher and high school coach pleaded not guilty Monday to charges he repeatedly sexually abused three young boys.

Authorities say he repeatedly raped and assaulted one boy, who is now 21, at his Waltham home over the span of several years in the late 1990s, beginning when the boy was 14. Dacey also is charged with sexually assaulting two other boys, both currently 15, at his home on several dates in 2005. Prosecutors say Dacey met all three boys through his role as their drama teacher or coach.

Posted by Doug at 6:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mexicans with little education and limited English skills are leading a wave of newly arrived immigrants who are increasingly fanning out from traditional gateway states, Census data released Tuesday indicate.

.
The dispersal of new immigrants to parts of the Southeast and Midwest that are unaccustomed to foreign-born populations in large numbers may be fueling national concerns about illegal immigration, some population analysts say.

Rapid increases in urbanization, population, immigration, and the aging community... present governments with significant challenges in meeting people's needs.

Posted by Doug at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) released a study which shows a fundamental transition in state tax policy as lawmakers have faced changing state economies and taxes as a major campaign issue. The paper reviews 25 years of state tax data to detail its findings and can be accessed on ATR's website:http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2006/august/081406pb-statetrends%20_2_.pdf

.

ATR's study of 25 years of state tax data finds several key points: 1) Tax increases are shrinking (particularly in recessions); 2) Tax cuts during periods of economic expansion are becoming more popular; 3) States are turning away from income taxes to targeted tax increases, such as tobacco taxes, and toward other forms of double taxation; and 4) States with high tax burdens continually lose residents and their income to lower tax states.

.

"What we see in this study is good news along with red flags for the future," said taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "State lawmakers have seen that voting for higher taxes means voting themselves out of office and forcing their residents and businesses to move to low- tax states. In the last recession lawmakers avoided broad-based tax increases but felt safe picking on certain constituents to fund rapid entitlement spending."

.

The shifts evident in ATR's study stem from the post-1990s recession when state elected officials were voted out of office in response to substantial tax increases enacted. The election served as a key lesson and the new governors and lawmakers seized the opportunity to cut taxes as the nation entered a sustained period of economic expansion.

.

"What we used to see in the states is a recession with steep broad tax increases followed by an expansion with more tax increases and enough spending to go around to make France jealous," continued Norquist. "Now we are seeing smaller tax increases in recessions and tax cuts in expansion. But states need to rein in spending and seek market-based healthcare and pension reforms to help ward off future tax increases and to build on the gains of the last 25 years."

.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases.

Posted by Doug at 5:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Security sources confirmed last night that alleged “baby bombers” were among those arrested over the plot to massacre thousands by downing transatlantic flights.

.

Those being quizzed included a husband and wife with a six-month-old infant.

.

The discovery prompted fears that there were fanatical mothers in secret al-Qaeda cells in Britain ready to become suicide bombers — and to die with their tots in their arms.

“It may be beyond belief, but we are convinced that there are now women in Britain who are prepared to die with their babies for their twisted cause. They are ruthless, single-minded and totally committed.”

An intelligence source said: “Al-Qaeda specialises in attempting the unexpected. What could be more unexpected in Western eyes than women willing to die with their babies?”

Posted by Doug at 5:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

Manchester – Fifteen-year-old Mirage Rousseau said she came home Wednesday afternoon to find two Manchester police officers inside her home, peering into her and her older brother's bedrooms.

.

She asked them what they were doing inside her family's 317 Rimmon St. apartment. They told her someone left the door open, and they walked in to search for a 14-year-old runaway.

.

Mirage and her dad, Wilfred Rousseau, said the doors to their apartment are never left open because of their Persian cat, named "Kitty." They said the doors were definitely closed Wednesday because Kitty is in heat.

.

Rousseau said, after learning of the officers being inside his home and talking to one of them, he called Manchester police to complain. He received an apology from Lt. James Stankiewicz, the night's shift commander.

.

Stankiewicz said he did apologize for the department because Rousseau was right -- the officers should not have entered the apartment.

.

The officers, whom he refused to identify because the issue has become a personnel matter, had no warrant and no one's permission to enter the apartment, Stankiewicz said.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Posted by Doug at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

.

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Posted by Doug at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Smash has a good observation:

Friendly Fire

HEZBOLLAH ROCKETS fall on Palestinian territory. Palestinians celebrate.

The Fatah member related that local residents cheered when they heard the rocket fall and saw the resulting flames. “Even if it were to fall on our heads, it wouldn’t have spoiled our joy. All of us here are praying for Hizbullah’s success and victory," he said.

"Even if it were to fall on our heads?"

Ya know, that could probably be arranged...

I saw this a couple of days, and just couldn't let it go.  I can't decide if this is a modern case of the Keystone Kops, or if these folks refuse to see the trees for the forest?

Think of it this way - Rockets fired from Lebanon are missing Israel and hitting Palestinians instead.    That Hezbullah rockets may be killing their fellow Palestinians and ruining their property? And they are HAPPY about this?

And these folks want us to believe that they are capable of running their nation?  They are certifiable....

Posted by Skip at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From Bloomberg News (H/T: Lucianne) is this gem:

This year, the new report says, the deficit will be $260 billion, or $111 billion less than the CBO estimated in March. For 2006, the government deficit will be 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from the old baseline prediction for 2006 of 2.6 percent. On Aug. 17, when the more extensive annual Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook appears, that 2 percent figure is likely to show up more definitively. But neither the budgeteers' news nor the prospect of a confirmation of it is generating much discussion.

President Bush promised to cut the budget in half by five years....according to this, his policies have provided a bit of a push!  I'm certainly no economist, and I realize that the Feds keep a number of things "off budget", but this HAS to be good news!

Think about it....5 months ago, the estimate was $370 billion.  IF this rate of decrease keeps up (which depends on the economy keeping up its pace), this budgetary number could be cut in half again next year.

Hey, President Bush! Listen up:

Cut taxes again - it seems to be working!

If you ever decide to use a veto again, think of what you might achieve by using it on a spending bill!  Couple of those, look at the great news you'd generate..

Er, or not, if it gets the media play that this did.... 

Posted by Skip at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at BlackFive, Grim has written a disturbing piece.  Not so much that it is wrong, but it points out, when you get right down to it, the vast chasm that separates us in the West from the Islamofascists.
He points out, rightly, that the things that we value the most are the things that they will target the most.  In order not to be attacked, we must value those things less in order to not make them targets of the attacks.

Even when it is our children. 

Before you go to the link here, please be aware that it will force you to think.  It starts, however, with the following:

The gentle soul -- how I respect her!  -- will begin by pointing out how many innocents have died in the recent wars, and especially the children, who are the most obviously innocent.  She will point out figures for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for Lebanon, and ask:  "How can you justify this?  These poor children, who might have been good men, good women, lain in the cold earth?

[snip]

She replies:  "But how can you justify their deaths?  Regardless of how hard you try, will you not kill them?  Some of them?  Should we not choose peace instead?"

Peace - this is the overriding concern of the those that cannot abide by war.  To them, the loss of any innocent is an anathema.  They struggle over the lost cost of potential, yet do not project forward into time in calculating the opportunity cost of not acting.  Peace is always desire....yet, they deny that there is a cost to that peace.  The current conflict in Lebanon is a real world example - everyone is crying for what they feel should be - peace.  Oh, they use other words like ceasefire, cessation of hostilities, and the like, but they want peace.

And they will not get it.  What they are not naming is what they will get - and that will be only temporary stability.  In the general case by Grim, he understands that the foulest of actions, the suffering of innocent children, is often the price to pay for real peace.  If those that desire a conquest (and that is what Hezbullah wishes, the Islamofascits desire) do not value what we do, they will use it against us.

"And yet," I say, "It is.  I have shown you that it is.  That means we have moved into a time beyond human wisdom.  We can no longer know the right.  It is beyond us. 

"We can only do," I must warn her, and you.  "We can only do, and pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven."

I agree with some of this, and disagree as well.  I think that while many like the Lady here knows the rightness of not killing innocent children, they cannot look past that "rightness".  I agree with Grim that it "is beyond" them.  They do not understand or comprehend that protecting the present can and does endanger the future innocents.  For if we do not win, that is the future we will have provided for them.

I disagree that we "no longer know the right".  As high of a cost that suffering innocents entails, the cost may be much higher if we do not act and proceed for that "higher" rightness.  The Lady's "rightness" must be overlooked and put aside for a time to defeat those that wish to enslave us.  The imperative here is that we never forget what we have put aside for a time so that we can try to regain it.

But that can happen only after the peace has been won by whatever means necessary.  Only then can we then regain and return to what would be normal - the rightness of the Lady.

And indeed, pray that we may be forgiven by the present innocents lost. 

Posted by Skip at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.  Only permanent interests - Lord Palmerston

I sometimes wonder if those that work in our beloved State Department know which is which.  From Little Green Footballs, I saw this:

State Dept. Wants to Delay Arms to Israel

According to the New York Times, State Department officials are working to delay arms shipments to Israel: Israel wants hastened shipment of US rockets: NYT.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israel has asked the Bush administration to hasten delivery of short-range anti-personnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hizbollah missile sites in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Friday.

Sourcing its report to two American officials, the newspaper said the request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly.

But the newspaper said some State Department officials want to delay approval because the rockets, while likely effective against hidden missile launchers, would also likely cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas.

They don't get it....they are still of are the opinion that only army vs army conflicts rate.  The enemy has deliberately changed the rules of warefare no matter what our State Department employees believe. To our enemy, (and I truely believe that Israel's enemies are ours - it is just right now, they are just not fighting us where we are now), our strictures are our weakness and they are going to exploit them, laughing all the way. 

They are fighting to win - there is only one rule and that is there are no rules. 

Our folks are mired so much in the letter of the law of war (the Geneva conventions) that they forget the spirit of war (Patton: "...your duty is not die for your country...make the other S.O.B. die for his!" and Reagan: "It's simple: we win and they lose").  Our enemy embraces this philosophy while we dance around it.

Too often it seems, the diplomats and wanna be's seem to want to over think everything.  And then go ahead and do just that - think too much.  I will grant that I know nothing of diplomacy (that's why I am an engineer and not a high level manager), but just as in engineering, one can make things too complicated. 

In engineering, simple is elegant and often, hard to achieve.  In this case, it is simple.  Israel, our staunch friend and ally, is fighting our foe and fighting for its life..  Help them win by getting what they have already purchased, to them. 

...because of the current circumstances...”

Careful, or those circumstances will become ours. 

Posted by Skip at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Brent over at Weekend Pundit has a quick discussion about tax reform, citing Ed Feulner over at TownHall.  The money quote from Brent:

I like the story of one of NH's senators Judd Gregg, who has special training beyond law school in tax law. Yet he can't even do his own taxes, it's just too complex

The original purpose of a tax is to  raise money for a given level of government.  With all of the additions and changes (with very few deletions) over the years, they are both right -> this is nothing more than a hodgepodge of rules to favor a given entity over another.  In short, it is the easiest and fastest way to manipulate the public into certain behaviors and to be used by companies against each other (or industries for that matter).  At the same time, it has provided braces and college educations to the offspring of those that benefit the most - tax accountants, lawyers, and lobbyists.

For the rest of us, it is either having to employ our own accountants and lawyers, sweating and uttering choice words before, on, and shortly after April 15th.  And given the rising cut of government taxes, perhaps fewer braces and lesser college education than if we were able to keep more of our hard earned money.

Here's what should be done:

I was for Steve Forbes's flat tax when he ran for President.  Summarized here, the salient points are:

• A flat rate of about 17%
• No tax paid, for a family of four, until an income threshold of $36,000
• Almost all other taxes and deductions disappear.
• The form is the size of a postcard.

Sounds good...but I like the FairTax from Congressman Linder and radio host Neal Boortz.  While the details can be found here, it can be summarized as:

The FairTax was created by first asking the American people what they wanted out of a tax system, and then having a team of respected economists design a tax system that met those demands.  The FairTax replaces the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax. The FairTax is levied only once, at the point of purchase on new goods and services. The simplicity of the FairTax frees Americans from our current overwhelming tax code and unshackles the U.S. economy.

The FairTax:

• Rate is about 23%
• Abolishes the IRS
• Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities - a Prebate
  
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
• Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

And no more April 15th to worry about. 

Take a look at your paycheck - LOOK at the gross, then look at the net.  Right now, the only way you can control how much you pay in taxes is to manage your income (generally, go lower, and who wants to do that!).  With this, you can control how much in taxes you pay by managing your spending. 

Posted by Skip at 8:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

And quickly too....it's late......been a long week already

NewsBusters reports:

Where Are We Going Wrong Helping Homegrown Terrorists Integrate Society?

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 10, 2006 - 15:45.

Made-in-the-UK Islamic radicals are trying to murder people - and it's the UK's fault for not doing a better job integrating them into society.

Of COURSE it's the West's fault, why else would they be trying to kill us? 

[SNIP]

Corpe: "It was a problem even before 7/7 happened last year. . . We are not facing foreign terrorists but people bred here in the UK. Something our politicians have been discussing today. Not only [must we] be more tolerant of the Muslim faith and realize these few do not speak for the Muslim faith. These people born here, brought up here, going to our schools and still feel the need to blow up planes to, to plot to explode buildings and tube stations.

Continued Corpe: "We have a real job to do here in the UK to try to reintegrate these people and find out where we are going wrong in helping these people realize that if they want to stay in this country they have to accept the freedoms we have here and respect human life in the same way we do."

Well, the concept is identified correction "they have to accept the freedoms....", but loses the concept on the "where are we going wrong" bit.  My sense of personal responsibility (applied to all who are not approaching room temperature) is that they've decided NOT to.  And it looks pretty lame that we are going to "help" them do anything.  They have to help themselves.  Our only option is to get them to leave - a better option than them trying to kill me.

****

LGF reports:

CAIR Goes Nuts Over Bush Remark

Right on cue, the Council on American Islamic Relations pegs the Seethe-O-Meter over President Bush’s use of the words “Islamic fascism:” US Muslims bristle at Bush term ‘Islamic fascists’.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a “war with Islamic fascists,” saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.

These guys just remind me of the Italian Anti-Defamation League (?) when the Mafia was getting toasted - always crying that we have to watch out for the Muslims.  Yes, we do - these guys.  Image the chutzpah - Muslims get ready to blow up planes with lots of innocent civilians on them, and they're worried about "anti-Muslim tensions" .  Simple enough - stop your fellow Muslims from trying this crap.

U.S. officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of al Qaeda.

“We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

Really?  The folks staging this want the whole world to live by their rules from the 7th century....sounds like fascism to me, dude.

“We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims,” he told a news conference in Washington.

Oh, it's ok for Muslims to do this (after all, Al Queda has done just that against the West, right), but not us?  We aren't allowed to defend ourselves?

“We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves.”

Tell you what...you first.

Also, Charles is all over the Photoshop propaganda of Hezbullah - go, Charles, go! 

***** 

Dhimmi Watch has this:

Report: U.S.-French Alliance on U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution Crumbling

Because the French are reverting to their Eurabian ways and parroting the Arab League line. From Fox, with thanks to Infidel Pride:

UNITED NATIONS — The French-American alliance at the United Nations over a Mideast cease-fire agreement is crumbling, sources tell FOX News.

The French U.N. delegation has joined with Arab nations and is now calling for a complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a condition of any cease-fire, the sources said.

In addition, the French have reportedly agreed with Arab demands that the Lebanese force be accompanied only by UNIFIL, with no international force to be deployed.

All I can think of is that old joke about the French, a tank, and two gears in forward and 10 in reverse....

*****

TongueTied reports: 

Must not Stimulate Muslims

We read:

"Malaysian authorities fined organizers of a concert by the chart-topping Pussycat Dolls for allowing the singers to wear skimpy costumes and for their "sexually suggestive routines," a news report said Wednesday." Source

Except for the very few miscreant guys among us in the West, things like this story always have me asking myself - What's the matter, can't Muslim men control themselves?

*****

RightWingNews has a good bit

Just What Lebanon Needs Right Now: Peace Activists

These people may be complete idiots, but you have to give them credit for having the courage of their convictions:

Courage, nope.  Idiots - yup.  I have other words...let's start with "useful idiots" and proceed from there. 

"International and local activists are planning on Saturday to bring a civilian convoy to southern Lebanon, worst hit by Israel's 28-day-old war on Hizbollah, to deliver aid and show solidarity with suffering residents.

And how will they tell the civilians from the Hezbullah terrorists? 

...One idea they are considering is to bring large numbers of people, rather than a few activists, to the Hizbollah strongholds of south Lebanon or south Beirut to try to protect them or draw attention to the plight of civilians there.

And how many people will they really get that will agree with the premise "I'm going to stand here, eyes to the sky, and wish that bomb in on me"?  If I remember right, when things were starting to look dangerous, most of the ones who went to Iraq to do just this lost the "courage of their convictions" pretty quick.  Otherwise, roll out the Darwin Awards!

So far, activists who have shown up in Lebanon from the United States and Europe are part of an exploratory group, but Shapiro believes they can attract hundreds more, including from Arab states, once they come up with a strategy.

"In the United States people were already contacting us, Lebanese and internationals interested in coming to Lebanon to see how we could help," Shapiro said."

So, they're going to be driving a convoy right into the middle of a hot war zone that features Israel fighting against blood thirsty, non-uniformed terrorists, in order to deliver aid and act as human shields? Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Let me be the first to say that I hope these people don't get killed. Even though, at best, they're very foolish and at worst, they're terrorist sympathizers, as long as they don't pick up guns or get caught directly giving supplies to terrorists, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

After what I saw of these folks before the Iraq war, and how little thanks the PeaceKeeper team that was captured (and one killed) gave to their military rescuers, again I trot out the idea of personal responsibility and choice.

If they want to go there, let them.  If they wish to put themselves in danger, let them.  If they have so little regard for themselves (but over inflated ideas of their results), go for it.  It might work.

But from 15 - 18,000 ft, even with advanced optics, they won't be that big to see.  Besides, for all we know, they might be Hezbullah - where's the uniforms? 

*****

G'night....will try again in the morning....maybe. 

Posted by Skip at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Subject: Helicopter landing - awsome!

Now, this be a PILOT!!!  Even tho' he's not fixed wing.  Awsome landing in Afghanistan.  I'm sure all of you have seen many choppers make some daring moves, but this one is spectacular!                                           

The shot was taken by a trooper in Afghanistan.  The Pilot is Larry Murphy, PA  National Guard.   Larry is a Keystone Helicopter Corp. EMS Pilot called to active duty.

This is a "unique" landing operation. This particular military  operation was to round up suspects.                     

Verified by SNOPES. 

Posted by BobM at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sirens screaming throughout London on Sunday morning, September 3^rd, 1939, punctuated the melancholy words of the Prime Minister as, his voice trembling, he announced to the people that “Now we are at war.”  There was an instant feeling of relief.  “Now,” said the people, “we know where we are.”  There were no demonstrations, for the Englishman knew too well what modern warfare might bring, but I saw no hesitation as English youth responded to the colors.

The Londoners’ sense of humor never wavered and people who were later to be bombed out of house and home settled down to the grim days ahead.  No one ever doubted that the Englishman could take it, yet those who realized how unprepared Britain was for war couldn’t help but feel sorry for her.  Because I had seen the effects of bombing during the Spanish War, I was often asked to pass judgment on British preparations.  My honest reply was always the same:  “I’d start all over again.  You are not ready for attacks on your soil.”

Gas masks were being issued to all who remained in London.  The day I went to get mine I heard a choice argument between an air raid warden and an elderly lady with her little Pekingese dog in leash.  She insisted that her dog should also be fitted with a “Mickey Mouse” gas mask since the dog was her best friend.  I didn’t stay to see if she got her way, but I appreciated the light moment in what was otherwise a grim time.

Posted by Ken at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, the West has been attacked - even if not successful with the plot being aborted by the work of the US, Pakistani, and British intelligence agencies (and who else more?).  Maybe, just maybe, folks are starting to take notice.

It really has to be something to get the nerds up in arms (thank you very much!)   From Slashdot (News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters):

Charter Flight Websites / Services?

X86Daddy asks: "TSA's latest announcement banning all fluids (toothpaste even) from carry-on luggage is the icing on a very sour cake. Many passengers are growing tired of the invasive security screenings, the increasing prices, lost and stolen luggage, and the decreasing quality of service with commercial flights in the United States. However, given the geographical size of this country and the lack of rail options, flight remains the only practical method of travel for most destinations. Can anyone suggest alternative flight services? Are there websites that connect Cessna or other small scale air charter services with interested passengers? I've found CharterX and CharterHub but they seem more geared toward executives looking for jets. Does anyone have experience traveling this way? Is the price point a lot higher, making this a dumb idea (just resign myself to buying toiletries at every destination and prepare for the mandatory anal probes in '07)?"

For a moment, forget about the "why" of the new restrictions - I am just looking at this from the aspect of a frequent flier who just made plans for another business trip to San Diego.

I don't carry a water bottle around or ingest my caffeine via coffee (I want my caffeine green! ->  Mountain Dew!), so I just wait for the "complementary beverage service" since United serves Pepsi products. Being a nerd (why ELSE would I surf Slashdot?), I don't care about bringing perfumes, hair gels, deoderant gels, toothpaste and what not...besides, taking all that stuff on board means less techie stuff in the bag (laptops, hubs, Ethernet cable, headphones, cell phone, DVDs, yadda, yadda - I never know what I will need at the other end, so I bring it all with me). 

One does have to set the correct priorities, right?  Oops, hold that thought!  CNN is reporting that:

The British Airports Authority said no hand luggage would be allowed onto planes leaving British airports until further notice

Besides banning liquids, British police are also banning passengers from carrying electronic key fobs, which have the potential to trigger bombs.

I've also heard reports that cell phones, laptops, and iPods (or other MP3 devices) were not allowed to be carried on. 

Now, these last restrictions have not yet happened on this side of the pong, but let me ask you - WHO in their right mind is going to let their laptop or other electronics go into the cargo area?

I realize that they work hard and in all kinds of weather.  Add to it, my knees wouldn't hold up to the punishment these folks put themselves through all day long.  I've watched the folks who load and unload those areas for years - gentleness is not a word that comes to mind. However, the only way that my laptop(s) are going in there is if my company insists that I bring them.  They own them - they are not mine, and I will follow those directions to the letter (smirk - yes, I do full backups every week).

My personal one?  Not so much.

Back to business, and that's the point - business.  If a business traveler can no longer bring a laptop safely on his/her trip, what is the overall effect on business travel going to be?  I've been on long trips many times - I don't want to waste that time just staring at the in-flight movie (if there is one) and the obligatory airline magazine and Sky Mall in the seat pocket in front of me isn't going to last that long (heck, sometimes they don't last as long as the taxi time to the runway).  At least I won't have to listen to some poor crew member say "Ma'am, you HAVE to turn off that cell phone" and "Sir, you were asked twice already to shut it down" (and I'd be hardpressed to use the words Ma'am and Sir at that point in time too!).

That's why I just love technology - options!  From a stricly selfish reason, this whole situation just makes my wish for the VLJs to arrive that much faster onto the business travel scene.  The problems that are about to be foisted on the major airlines are just going to help this disruptive new mode of air travel absolutely take off - especially since the FAA just gave provisional certification clearance to Eclipse

The Federal Aviation Administration today granted certification to Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 small jet, a pivotal development for the Albuquerque company and the world of general aviation.

The certification, the FAA's stamp that the plane is sound, transitions Eclipse from a company with just a concept to one with a product to deliver.

"We can sell the airplane. It's pretty straightforward," Eclipse Chief Executive Vern Raburn, a former Microsoft executive, said in an interview last week in anticipation of the announcement. "Everything that we've done for the last seven years has been directed toward getting certification." 

Eclipse can't begin mass production yet. The FAA granted it a provisional certification allowing all existing planes to be flown, but new jets can't be delivered to customers until the FAA grants what's called a type certification

 Safe?  They certainly will be - no other passengers, or only those that I know, will be on the plane with me.  I'll be able to bring on board what I want - the time will be MINE!  The plane will be MINE! I can run my laptop until the batteries fail (and the better air taxis will feed my seat power - awesome!).  And no more lost luggage either.

And I certainly would not have to depend on the hotel for toiletries at all.

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

From Computerworld:

Poetry in Motion

"There's a bug in my monitor," executive smirks as he calls in IT pilot fish for help. Some sort of prankware? fish wonders. Or a virus? "A tiny eight-legged bug appeared to be walking rapidly across his LCD, like something out of an old-time video game," fish says. Fish grabs another laptop and plugs the buggy screen into it. "It's still there," sighs fish. "There's a real bug trapped inside his display. Poetic justice."

Just what every computer tech wants....a real bug....

Posted by Skip at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NEW YORK A new Gallup poll finds that many Americans -- what it calls "substantial minorities" -- harbor "negative feelings or prejudices against people of the Muslim faith" in this country. Nearly one in four Americans, 22%, say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.

.

While Americans tend to disagree with the notion that Muslims living in the United States are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a significant 34% believe they do back al-Qaeda. And fewer than half -- 49% -- believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States.

.

Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some "prejudice" against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too "extreme."

Posted by Doug at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The laws of economics are not as certain as the laws of physics, but if we ignore them and substitute liberal political rhetoric instead,  we remain ignorant of the cause-effect relationships that effect our lives.  Supply-demand, the costs of regulation, labor, and capital infrastructure, market uncertainty...all of these go into the price we pay at the pump.  Too bad so few Americans understand this.  Link is here.

Big Oil's record profits attract attention and outrage, but an independent study has found that oil companies do exactly what economic textbooks say they should do with all that money: They invest it in oil exploration and development efforts that eventually should relieve pressure on prices.

Posted by Ken at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been kinda busy lately with our other blog (GilfordGrok) in our blog family and getting ready for budget season for our town.  However, I did have a moment to do a little surfing and found this new NH based blog, NH State of Mind,  with a good Post on the more important part of family- marriage.  A little dispiriting, as society does depend on this institution to move forward.....

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's Security Cabinet convened Wednesday to likely approve a broader ground offensive in Lebanon, with key ministers arguing that the military must deal more blows to Hezbollah and score quick battlefield victories before a Mideast cease-fire is imposed. Meanwhile, more Hezbollah rockets were fired at northern Israeli towns, bringing the total during the conflict to 3,333, police said.

Hezbollah guerrillas fired more 100 rockets at Israeli towns, including several medium-range missiles that landed near the West Bank town of Jenin and south of the Israeli city of Afula, police said.

Posted by Doug at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here we go again...not able to track those we should! 

FBI Warns Law Enforcement to Look Out for 11 Missing Egyptian Exchange Students
Monday , August 07, 2006

The FBI alerted state and local authorities Monday to be on the lookout for 11 Egyptian exchange students who arrived in the U.S. last month but never showed up for class.

The men, who range in age from 18 to 22,

A group of young Muslim Arab males unaccounted for after entering the USA on student visas ... haven't I heard this story before...

were scheduled to attend a month-long program in U.S. history and culture, plus English language instruction, at Montana State University

...because such a vital program couldn't be taught in Cairo by an American instructor...not much $$$ for Montana State in that kind of program...

along with six other students. The group flew from Cairo and arrived in the U.S. on July 29. All entered the U.S. legally, but officials said the no-shows violated the terms of their visas and that the government would likely send them home once they turn up.

FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko emphasized that there was no indication that the men were involved in any illicit activity.

"At this point, all they have done is not show up for a scheduled academic program," Kolko said. "There is no threat associated with these men."

...ignore the man behind the curtain...innocent until proved guilty...no threat associated with blatantly violating our laws....

Cases like these are actually quite common, Kolko said.

Oftentimes when large groups of foreign students arrive in the United States, it is almost inevitable that some will break off and head to tourist destinations before turning up several days later.

The government tightened the student visa process after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks when it learned that four of the hijackers had entered the country on foreign student visas.

Montana State has tried repeatedly to contact the students, university spokeswoman Cathy Conover said. When that failed, the school notified Homeland Security officials and registered the Egyptians as "no-shows" in the system developed after Sept. 11 to track foreign students.

"We hope this doesn't cast doubt on this program because we think it's important to have international students on our campus and in our community," Conover said.

FOX News' Ian McCaleb, FOXNews.com's C. Spencer Beggs and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Pithy comments by Ken 

Posted by Ken at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This could take place in a lot of places - it has now happened in our small village of Gilford, NH. 

Doug has addressed the case of Matt McGonagle here - now convicted, he plead guilty to abusing a 14 year old female student at his school when he was 30 years old - almost old enough to be her father. He has received, in my opinion, a relatively light sentence for someone who has abused his power of authority and standing as a teacher - but I will leave that in Doug's hands to follow up on that aspect.

My problem?  What has drawn my ire is yet another circumstance when a bleeding heart liberal is upset ("troubled" is the word he used) with the way that the abuser was treated by the court system.  In one of the local papers (The Citizen) came this Letter to the Editor (8/5/06) from (Dr. William Zechhausen, a United Church of Christ Pastor and frequent writer in psychological and counseling journals.

On Friday, July 28, I attended the sentencing hearing of Matt McGonagle.

I found instances of insensitivity and even humiliation troubling. An official within the county legal system said what I perceived is what happens daily in court, and nothing can be done about it. A lawyer told me that what I observed is why he's leaving the profession. He added, someone should write about this. I wish he were doing so. Though perhaps it takes someone outside the system, to speak up about what happened. I believe most insensitivity, mine and others, is through lack of awareness, and conversation about it can produce change in people of good will.

I, on the other hand, have a real hard time with this sentiment, and it is a lot harsher than "troubling". He continues on...

To consider the plaintiff as the sole victim is too limited, and blind to the psychological and spiritual reality of all the people involved.

I agree with Dr. Zechhausen - he is absolutely right that considering that the plaintiff is the sole victim - her family has suffered mightily. Who knows the ramifications of their family life will be based on this McGonagle's acting selfishly on his urges?  I cannot imagine the loathing and the utter blackness that has confronted her parents.

Oops, I spoke too soon! 

It opens the door to unconscious or even intentional abuse, toward those who are considered the villains. To practice what we profess to believe as religious people in the broadest sense, as in choosing kindness over hurting others, doesn't undermine the justice system in its judgment and penalty requirements. Rather it strengthens, and humanizes, the justice system.

Now he and I start to diverge.  "Considered the villains"?  Considered?  You have got to be kidding me! If McGonagle is NOT a villain, who the heck would be? How high (or low) does the bar have to be set nowadays before we are ready to castigate wrong doing?  I am just beside myself reading this try to humanize a monster. Frankly, I do not care what McGonagle feels – he deserves, IMHO, much more than the jail time.

I know that just before these words, he was setting this up by talking about the reactions of many doctors when sued for malpractice.I'll go along with this as I've known good doctors sued by perfidious people just out to make a buck.  But now, he tries to make the moral equivalence of a doctor being sued for malpractice and the depression that they may undergo over the suit to heartache of this guy who abused his authority as a teacher in going after this defenseless girl AFTER SHE SAID NO.

Repeat - she said NO. And I say NO in trying to show compassion to this lowest of criminals – those that prey on children. No, they do not deserve any compassion – they deserve as much scorn, ridicule, and shame as we as a society can muster! So often we hear from those that are from the Left side of the aisle that we on the Right fail to protect the most vulnerable among us - trust me, trying to soften the image of this convict isn't helping your cause any.

Oh, and before I forget - let's address the unconscious or even intentional abuse part.  I keep seeing this word - unconscious - used more and more in terms of "bad" things.  Examples are often used in connection with racism as in "unconscious racism" or "unconscious white privilege".

I make no claim to be a student of psychology, but this seems, more and more, to be an excuse to hammer home points for whomever is trying to make them.  After all, how does one accused of having "unconscious" feelings defend themselves against such a canard?

He goes on:

here was impressive sensitivity for the officially designated victim at the hearing. Her anonymity was protected. Her statement was read by her lawyer. She wrote that she didn't know if her rage would ever fully subside, and that the jail sentence would assure that McGonagle would "never use his power over children to ensnare them in his web." Hopefully that will prove helpful for her healing. But many reading the character assassination of Matt would likely not make the distinction between a dramatic expression of a victim's pain, and Matt's reality.

 Boo frickin' hoo. Now the good doctor is whining about what the real victim is saying!  She was the one that was approached and persued AFTER SAYING NO!  She was the one whose being was violated.  And all the good doctor is concerned about is McGonagle's well being? 

I do not advocate physcial abuse.  However, in this case, he deserves any verbal abuse coming his way.  I am not concerned a whit about "Matt's reality".  Any thing coming his way is a result solely of his actions.  What liberals seem to forget, or sweep under the rug, is that decisions and actions have consequences.  He made a really bad decision - now he will suffer for it.  And rightfully so.  But this attempt to humanize him only shows how wrongheaded people can be.

Allowing those soft on evil and those that commit evil to continue this only adds to the problem.
He rails against “But many reading the character assassination of Matt “. You go after a young girl, not obeying the word NO – frankly, he assassinated his own character.

Even the prosecuting attorney stated "McGonagle has taken responsibility for his crime and has no prior record." There also have been no further allegations in the years since the events being prosecuted. Matt's attorney said defending him was a unique experience as a defense lawyer. Rather than hearing "How can you defend someone like this?" people have said to him, Matt is a wonderful teacher and person, whom we can't afford to lose. That was not quoted in the papers.

Dandy, he owned up to it....does that mean we treat him with kid gloves?  So WHAT if he has no prior and no further allegations - it still does not ameliorate what he has done to a CHILD! 

Doctor, listen to yourself!  Frankly, anyone who attacks a child is NOT, by definition, a wonderful teacher and only a moron could say that with a straight face (or perhaps, a defense lawyer).  Any school system that has any ethical grounding would and should let him go in a flash as well.

The judge... addressed Matt, saying: Having been at the top of your profession, you are now at the very bottom. That comment felt like an unnecessary cruelty. At this point Matt needs no moral lesson. He faces penalties for the rest of his life. He's not a repeat offender with an arrogant attitude. For someone already deeply wounded and in crisis, such a humiliating public comment can only wound more deeply. What's the point?

It was cruel in that it did not go far enough. Shame on you for not shaming this so called adult!  And yes, it is obvious that Mr. McGonagle DOES need morality lessons.  And for this Letter, I tend to think it may be true of others as well.  How can one morally defend someone that has pushed themselves onto a child? 

How bankrupt of a society have we become?   We have given up on Shame in this society. Although it has been abused, this key ingredient is now seemingly missing from society's toolbox in keeping outliers in line with acceptable social mores. We have been hit over the head so often about being too judgmental that we have lost the capacity to be judgmental when it is truly needed. We, as a society and much to my sorrow, have become so open minded that our brains are falling out.

Near the end of the hearing, the county attorney said there were people present who should recognize what was being addressed happened on their watch. There were conflicting interpretations of who and why she was condemning supporters of Matt, but it was clear she was attacking suffering people who were present. What in the world was in her mind in doing that?

Her job. She protects society against society's abusers and miscreants.  The law is the law - not a psychiatrist's couch.  Her job is to take care of the real victims and not the "created" ones. If you protect or defend a child abuser, you become an enabler, a co-conspirator. She was doing the right thing by attacking the morals and judgment of those that would do so.

And there was never more than one girl whose boundaries were violated.

That we know of.....and does that mean it is OK that I rob a bank as long as I only do it once?

He ends with this:

This was the first plea bargain I attended. I left with a heavy heart. But it was an eye-opening experience and a reminder of one more context in which we may injure one another, deliberately, or thoughtlessly. I hope to take that to heart.

 I'm guessing this was written by

      b) someone who is clueless what it costs to keep someone behind bars.

 

what a compassionate society we have become - 100 yrs ago this individual

would have been shot on the spot.  seems we spend more time and money

protecting the perp than helping the victim.

We as a society must protect our children.  We as a society must learn that the perps must suffer punishment.  It is time to grow up. When people do wrong, they should be punished. In the case of abusing kids, they deserve everything they get, and more.

Posted by Skip at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

"The security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to U.S. policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. A strong Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel shares our commitment to democracy, freedom, personal liberty and rule of law."

"The problem of militias and non-state actors operating in a sovereign country is precisely the same as that faced by Americans and coalition forces in Iraq -- also supported by Iran and Syria.

"We believe that Israel's military operation to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon is a correct and legitimate response to the creation of an armed force accountable to Syria and Iran … and using Lebanese territory to engage in cross-border warfare.

The statement was issued through the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in Washington, which organizes exchanges and visits between military leaders of the U.S. and Israel to strengthen the security of both nations.

Click the "continue" link below to read the full text with list of the signers.

JINSA Flag and General Officers Statement on Israeli-Hezbollah Fighting

We, the undersigned, believe that Israel’s military operation to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon is a correct and legitimate response to the creation of an armed force accountable to Syria and Iran residing within the boundaries of Lebanon and using Lebanese territory to engage in cross-border warfare. Israel voluntarily withdrew completely from Lebanese territory in 2000 under the terms of UN Resolution 1559, but the Government of Lebanon was unable or unwilling to assert its sovereignty in the area Israel vacated.

.

We believe further that the IDF has taken care to focus its response so as to minimize civilian casualties among the Lebanese, even as Hezbollah indiscriminately rockets Israeli towns and cities. It has become increasingly clear that Hezbollah took advantage of Lebanon’s weakness to hide its forces and its weapons in the south of Lebanon and its command and control capabilities in Beirut, within the civilian population. This ensured that any Israeli response would create civilian casualties that would dominate the international media.

.

The relatively few Israeli casualties in the face of widespread rocket and missiles attacks appear to be the result of an active civil defense system in Israel, not humanitarian concern by Hezbollah.

.

We have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our decades of military experience and came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to U.S. policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. A strong Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel shares our commitment to democracy, freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through the prism of American security interests, in which regard we make two points:

.

First, the problem of militias and non-state actors operating in sovereign country is precisely the same as that faced by American and coalition forces in Iraq. The militias and foreign fighters facing our troops are also supported by Iran and Syria.

.

Second, we have a particular interest in the demise of Hezbollah. Until September 11, 2001, Hezbollah was the terrorist organization responsible for more American deaths than any other, including 241 American servicemen in the Beirut barracks bombing and 17 Americans in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. We have not forgotten William Buckley, Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and Lt. Col. William (Rich) Higgins, USMC.

. 

We believe strongly that any cease-fire must be accompanied by a determined international military effort to assist Lebanon in rooting out the armed remnants of Hezbollah and ensuring that the Lebanese Army is the controlling armed force in the south. Anything less would be a prescription for renewed fighting at the time of Hezbollah’s choosing.

.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their neighbors was clear. Thus, we view the current conflict in and around Israel with great dismay. America’s responsibility as a friend to Israel - and to Lebanon - should strengthen our country’s resolve to assist and support Israel in its efforts to dislodge Hezbollah’s military capabilities from southern Lebanon and work with the international community to ensure that the Lebanese Army is deployed to the international border in a manner that protects both countries.

.

(Signed as of 07 August 2006) *

RADM Fred Ames, USCG (ret.) - Assistant Commandant for Human Resources
Lt. Gen. Marcus A. Anderson, USAF (ret.) - Inspector General, HQ USAF
Maj. Gen. Max Baratz, USAR (ret.) - Chief of the Army Reserve
Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. USA (ret.) - Commander VII Corps
RADM Charles Beers, USN (ret.) - Commander, Submarine Group Ten
Gen. William Begert, USAF (ret.) - Commander, Pacific Air Forces, and Air Component Commander for the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
Lt. Gen. Walter E. (Buck) Buchanan III, USAF (ret.) - Commander, 9th Air Force and U.S. Central Command Air Forces
Lt. Gen. Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.) - Vice Commander-in-Chief, Military Airlift Command
Lt. Gen. Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.) - Deputy Allied Commander, Europe
Gen. J.B. Davis, USAF (ret.) - Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe (NATO)
Lt. Gen. Joseph DeFrancisco, USA (ret.) - Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, U.S. Pacific Command
ADM Leon Edney, USN (ret.) - Commander in Chief, Allied Forces NATO
Maj. Gen. Bobby O. Floyd, USAF (ret.) - Director of Logistics, Air Mobility Command
Gen. John Foss, USA (ret.) - Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command
Maj. Gen. Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.)
Maj. Gen. David Grange, USA (ret.) - Commander, Task Force Eagle (Bosnia) and Task Force, Kosovo.
Lt. Gen. Tom Griffin, USA (ret.) - Chief of Staff, Allied Forces Southern Europe
Lt. Gen. Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.) - Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific/Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command/ Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific/Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Bases, Pacific
Lt. Gen. John Hall, USAF (ret.) - Commander of U.S. Forces, Japan and Commander, 5th Air Force
ADM Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.) - Vice Chief of Naval Operations
VADM Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.) - Commander, U.S. Submarine Forces
VADM Anthony Less, USN (ret.) - Commander, Naval Air Forces, U.S. Atlantic Fleet
RADM Frederick L. Lewis, USN (ret.) - Commander, Naval Doctrine Command
Lt. Gen. Donald M. Lionetti, USA (ret) - Commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.) - Commander, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island and the Eastern Recruiting Region
Gen. Gregory S. Martin, USAF (ret.) - Commander, Air Force Materiel Command
Lt. Gen. Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.) - Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
VADM Paul McCarthy, USN (ret.) - Commander, U.S. Seventh Fleet
Maj. Gen. James C. McCombs, USAF (ret.) - Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command
Lt. Gen. Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.) - Deputy Commandant for Aviation MG
RADM William F. Merlin, USCG (ret.) - Commander Eighth Coast Guard District
RADM Riley Mixson, USN (ret.) - Director of Air Warfare
Maj. Gen. William C. Moore, USA (ret.) - Director of Operations & Plans
Lt. Gen. Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.) - Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Lt. Gen. Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.) - Superintendent, U.S. Air Force Academy
Lt. Gen. Garry Parks, USMC (ret.) - Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Maj. Gen. Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.) - Commander, Special Operations Command & Commanding General 23rd Air Force
VADM James Perkins, USN (ret.) - Commander, Military Sealift Command
Lt. Gen. Charles H. Pitman, USMC (ret.) - Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation, HQMC
RADM Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.) - Commander, First Coast Guard District
General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.) - Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army
RADM Norman Saunders, USCG (ret.) - Commander, 7th Coast Guard District
Maj. Gen. Sidney Shachnow, USA (ret.) - Commanding General, JFK Special Warfare Center and School at Ft. Bragg
Gen. Lawrence Skantze, USAF (ret.) - Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Gen. Bob Springer, USAF, (ret.) - Vice Commander in Chief, Military Airlift Command
Gen. Donn A. Starry, USA (ret.) - Commanding General, U.S. Army Readiness Command
Maj. Gen. Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.) - Commanding General, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing
Lt. Gen. Lansford E. Trapp Jr, USAF (ret.) - Vice Commander, Pacific Air Forces
ADM Jerome Tuttle, USN (ret.) - Director, Space & Electronic Warfare
Gen. Louis C. Wagner, Jr., USA (ret.) - Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Command
RADM George R. Worthington, USN (ret.) - Commander Naval Special Warfare Command and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
RADM Guy Zeller, USN (ret.) - Commander Cruiser Destroyer Group Three/Commander Battle Group Foxtrot
* Last assignment of all persons listed noted for purposes of identification only.

Posted by Doug at 6:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Much has been written here in NH, due to the ascendancy of Gene Robinson to bishop of the NH Episcopalian church (openly gay, recently admitted to a rehap facility for alcohol abuse). As an Evangelical Baptist, I have glumly watched, sometimes in horror, as these “high” churches (for their liturgical services) have changed their doctrines to suit the times and the norms of the public culture from their original doctrines of how to worship God.

Concerned about their fracturing denomination, about 150 Central Florida Episcopalians packed the sanctuary of St. Richard's Episcopal Church on Saturday.

.

"We take no position on Scripture or theology or morals," said Donna Bott, a leader of a group called Episcopal Voices of Central Florida, which sponsored the meeting. "We are just Episcopalians."

Posted by Doug at 4:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same—the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers.

Posted by Doug at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

More thoughts on the One Voice (a local singing group here in the Lakes Region) concert I went to over the Fourth of July holiday (yeah, I know, my memory / day dreams act a bit funny from time to time - I blame it on my kids).  As they went through the concert, one of the narrators read one of Lincoln's speeches.  It struck me how often a President could discuss God and Biblical themse all without an eyebeing blinked.  His faith was certainly front and center.

Turned out, it is more than a speech - it is his second Inaugural Address.  My question on this, given the emphasis by those that wish to remove religion from the public square, do you think any President in the future could give a speech like this that depends so much on God?

And get away with it without comment?

Just a question....... 

Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1865

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict