Gardening: we need weed killer.

The Democrats and their media sycophants have achieved a new low: it is now clear that no fewer than 7 of the YouTube debate questions were "plants" by staffers of Democrat candidates or democrat-controlled organizations (like unions, etc.). CNN, the gatekeeper and host of this farce claim that they knew nothing about this, but of the thousands of questions posed by genuine Republicans interested in the opinions of their candidates, so that they can vote in their Republican, primaries, they picked 7 of some 20-odd questions from people who have publicly declared themselves to be Democrats.

The Democrats have no business in trying to alter the outcome of an internal affair within the Republican party. You can bet your bottom that if the Republicans had done the same to the Democrat YouTube debates, we'd have heard loud screaming and tantrums from the aggrieved candidates ... the press baying for blood. But because it is the Republicans who have been sabotaged, we hear ... next to nothing. Media bias? If you need proof, here it is. And the Clinton News Network ("CNN") is the most guilty of all. This CANNOT be mere co-incidence. If the CNN staffers only looked for questions that would serve to try and further left-leaning viewpoints, then it might be reasonable to have picked those questions -- but that is media bias in its initial and obvious form, and cannot be excused.

There is also the question of journalistic negligence: the talk show loonies on the right only had to Google the names of the questioners to find out their true allegiance. One such "plant" was actually a Hil-liar staffer for some sort of Gay, Lesbian and Transgender task force. Others work directly for the Edwards campaign. Ever though of checking your sources, CNN? Remember Dan Rather? Sloppy work ... very, very sloppy. I'd have expected better from the internet and media-savvy left, but it might also go to show how blinkered and obsessively focused the left is on trying to do anything to win the next election. It is about electing a party to them, and the actual viewpoints and beliefs of the candidates, left or right wing, don't seem to matter: elect a Democrat and we will be alright ... everything will come out fine.

What was missing from the questions in the debate ... hmmm, lemme see .... How about Iraq? How about the economy? How about foreign policy? How about China or Russia? How about the dollar, the debt crisis, crime or health care? HOW ABOUT ANYTHING THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS TO OUR FUTURE?

Instead, we get to hear how Rudy believes in the Bible. How Mitt believes the "Word of the Lord." How Huckabee believes every word. What were they shooting for, CNN ... were they looking to portray the Republican candidates as religious zealots and too crazy to be considered as potential presidents? Remember, these guys are on the right -- their constituency is comprised of ... religious zealots, bible thumpers and creationists. All CNN managed to prove -- for the people that matter, the people voting as registered Republicans in the primaries -- is that the candidates have differing levels/types of Christian belief. It really does not matter what sort of Blue State Hairies are up in arms about those beliefs ... THEY DON'T VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. Duh........ Talk about losing sight of the ball in their leftist zeal to discredit those of faith.

If anything, all CNN really managed to do was bolster the credibility of Rudy and Mitt, and there is no way that this was CNN's intention.

It also amuses me hugely to watch Hil-liar trot out Barbra to counter Hussein Obama's Oprah. Talk about a campaign that is completely out of touch with the American people. It is evidence of some Hollyweird-DC political connection between two groups of people that haven't associated with a real person on the street or on a factory assembly line in a long, long time ... if ever. Obama is the real deal. I stated that in my blog almost a year ago. He "gets" it. He really does represent how a great many Americans feel -- even if I disagree with a lot of it. His getting Oprah's support is HUGE, because Oprah is the single greatest arbiter of American thought to a massive segment of our population. She has cred with all walks of life, and she controls the woman's vote more than any other person in America. Barbra ... is popular with New Yorkers (the only place Hil-liar could carpetbag to get to the Senate), old farts in L.A. and leftists remembering the good old days of the '60s. She is irrelevant. And I am still waiting for her to make good her promise to leave.

This little contrast is far more important than it appears on its face: it is a distinction between a vote for the old and the new, a vote for the grand liberal baby-boomer posturings of the '60s and where the left might go tomorrow. If Obama doesn't know something, he says so and promises to study it and get back to the questioner. Hil-liar spouts party dogma -- old party dogma. Obama is not afraid to be wrong -- Hil-liar is terrified of being wrong and loses the plot completely whenever she gets off-message. And experience? Give me Obama.

Merry Christmas or Happy HannuRamaKwazica

In the Land of the Loonies, aka Massachusetts, Merry Christmas has been banned from the malls. Yessir, folks, Santa will not be wishing you a Merry Christmas this year; if you are lucky you might just get a "Happy Holidays."

Contrast this, if you will, with the notion of receiving 40 lashes for letting your students name a teddy bear "Mohammed." That is the vile crime committed by a British woman working in a school in Khartoum, Sudan (why she was crazy enough to work there is another story). Now, after a great deal of diplomatic wrangling, this has been commuted to 15 days in prison. Prison. Yep, because she has defiled the name of the Prophet.

Since this is turning out to be a day of comparing and contrasting, contrast that to the People's Republic of Cambridge. In Cambridge you might do time if you included the name of Jesus or Santa (not that they really have ANYTHING to do with each other) in any communication you might have with another person ... or dog for that matter. "Jesus loves you, poochie..." and the next thing you know, Birkenstock-wearing thought police have shackled you to a Repulican candidate for office and thrown you into a dark cell under the Harvard School of Arts and Sciences. "Waterboard this running-dog-conservative-religious villain!" Recant your allegiance to the Fat One with his possessed flying sled!! Free the reindeer, but not the one with the radioactive nose!

But it is okay to wish Happy Kwanza or Hanukkah, as well as "Happy Pagan Winter Solstice", "Happy Ramadan" (although this one varies with the lunar calendar and might happen in July), "Happy Festival of Slaughtered Pine Trees", or even "Happy Retailing Orgy." Those are acceptable in Cambridge. A couple of years ago at my son's school (located in the People's Republic) an administrative assistant complained about a wreath that had been placed in the entry foyer of the school. She felt that it was hostile to her religious beliefs and made her working conditions intolerable. A wreath ... made out of pine boughs, a simple red ribbon and some pine cones. Call the People's 911!!!! Sirens blaring, the local versions of the Pasdaran, came screeching to a halt in front of the school, in their (Toyota hybrid) pickup screaming slogans glorifying Ayatollah Duval, and stormed the building removing all quasi-religious tokens. This event still bothers me more than a little. Or even a lot.

The thing of it is that if we had put a wiccan symbol in the center of the wreath, it would undoubtedly have been able to remain, spreading beautiful pine scent throughout the building. Which makes me wonder what the Sudanese penalty would have been for displaying a token of some belief other that the one true belief.... Death? Remember that in Saudi Arabia (our friends, remember?) it is illegal to have any demonstration whatsoever of any religious belief other than Islam.

So similar levels of tolerance exist in Riyadh and Cambridge, at least with regards to Santa.

Hugo Chavez -- Robbing Hood

Mr. Chavez, who reminds me of a less sane Gaddafi (Ghadaffi, Ghaddafi, Gadaffi -- your choice), is engaged in a curiously hypocritical game inside Venezuela. This lunatic -- for he is a lunatic, and not crazy as a fox -- has been stripping the Venezuelan national petroleum industry (PDVSA) to pay for his "social programs." These programs are, at least according to his propaganda, designed to raise the living standard of the average working class Venezuelan. Chavez, you see, casts himself as a modern day Robin Hood. The oil is the gold and King John is the U.S. and its oil companies.... So far, so good. Everyone knows that this particular combination is not known for their benevolent attitudes towards indigenous peoples.

The reality is that he is paying for the votes of the people to cement himself further into control of Venezuela. And he does not care how badly he damages the "goose the lays the golden eggs" to do it. Chavez wants to abolish term limits for the Presidency of Venezuela ... so that he can selflessly continue to serve the people of Venezuela. "A vote against this is a vote for treason...." Friends, he seriously means that if you vote against me, you will be killed. Maybe not now, but we will know and we will remember. This starts to look like the classic dictatorship in the making. Sounds like Stalin. Sounds like Hitler. And Castro must be wetting his pants.

Chavez fired all the oil engineers and workers that went out on strike causing his first presidency to fail. They have been blacklisted and cannot find any meaningful employment in that country. The went out on strike as a union ... wait, isn't that the sort of people that Chavez was meant to be protecting from the evil capitalists in the first place? Isn't depriving people of an income a tool used by the evil ruling classes? Hmmm, that seems to be lost on Chavez and his supporters who continue to label those workers as "traitors." If I were any of them, I'd get the hell out of Dodge. And soon, as the writing is on the walls."

With all the qualified personnel unemployed and party cronies and leftist peasants running the oil industry, it should come as now surprise that the whole infrastructure is on the verge of collapse. No maintenance is being done. No reinvestment for the future. To bail himself out, Chavez will have to bring in outside help, maybe the Chinese and Iranians -- for a price. And that price might turn out to be too high for the United States to tolerate. Think about that one for a while. And if Venezuela signs some mutual protection treaties with Russia or China, what exactly would we do about that? What could we do? What should we do? Wait for chaos to descend and then ....

Chavez, might have signed his own death warrant.

Chavez

Hugo Chavez ... I am not quite sure what he is up to. He reminds me of Ghaddafi a little.

Random thoughts

You know, I have just been re-reading Lord Monckton's response to the Fourth and final (hahahah) IPCC report on Global Warming. See for yourself (and I mean READ it, you lazy surface skimming web-louse):

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JB14i4fy4CIJ:www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf+lord+monckton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=firefox-a

OR download the pdf -- you can google to get the correct URL.

What "gets" me is that Monckton is so clear and concise, his writing is so devoid of any "froofrah" surplusage, that I am (naively) astounded that this has not received more press coverage. But then this proves -- given the clarity of the analysis by Monckton -- that the press is entirely corrupt and politically motivated ... morally bankrupt.

You see, it is pellucidly clear that we are being taken for a load of idiots in the framework of the political crisis that is "global warming." Lenin's useful idiots. It is only too easy to state the horrors of Algore's fantasies as fact, widely accepted by Blue Staters everywhere as the inevitable future. Trouble is that Red Staters are too ignorant of the truth to refute the pap fed to them by the news media. Ugh.

If we suddenly (however improbable) see 5 years of declining temperatures and devastating snows across the Northern Hemisphere, we will see two groups of people: those who "never really believed it (global warming) in the first place" and those who will be pointing to this period as an anomaly that proves their truth. The sanctimonious who currently assert to me that the fact of global warming is incontrovertible -- they will likely fall into the first group and point to my professed environmental activism as proof that I, not they, were part of the panic stricken idiots. I want everyone to have to take a census-like vote, to go down on their permanent records of how they come out on this issue -- right now.

There is every reason to want to protect our environment. It is a good thing. We do need to cut out our oil habit. We need to find alternative sources of energy -- to grow as a society. To leave our children and their children a clean Earth to enjoy. Not because central Georgia will shortly become the seafront property in Algore's vision. It simply makes sense. I'd rather have a wind turbine in my yard and solar panels on my roof that see Ahmad drive around in a Bentley paid for by my oil dollars. Ahmad ... plant your lips on my nether eye.

Hil-liar: according to Drudge, she's a dyke. So what? I really could not care less, at least with regard to her sexuality, although it does make Bill's position all the more pitiful. Imagine being the "most powerful man on Earth" and have to resort having some little strumpet clean your whistle as your ersatz relationship. Pathetic, really.

But if true, this allegation also points out a duplicity that is simply breathtaking: how could this play out un-commented, hidden, unseen for so long? And have the Liar parade her family as her support network, her means to remain in touch with the common citizen? And, not only does this speak ill of her character to become President, it speaks extraordinarily ill of the media. They have to know. They do know. Something like this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back of media credibility, the something that causes de-facto revolution in the United States. A social revolution. And it would not be pretty -- because the VAST overwhelming majority of Americans would not like this one bit.

Mr Union-man, life-long Democrat, would look at this and be disgusted. He is not diverse, nor does he care to become diverse -- or tolerant for that matter. Mrs Church-goer ... she cheats on her husband ... with a woman. 'Nuff said. Soccer-mom, ditto. And unfairly, the whole Democratic Party would be tarred with the same brush. Actually, I'd love to see Nancy Pelosi tarred in any which way it could be arranged, feathers optional.

For me, personally, if the allegation is true, I just wish that she had come "out" after Bill embarrassed her for the umpteeth time and run her Senate campaign as what she might be and onwards. I could more easily vote for her wearing true colors than the farce she currently represents. Which reminds me, what does she represent? Anyone? Bueller?

Why are there hails of bullets?

That is a question that "minority community activists" have been loudly screaming every time a young punk gets shot in a police standoff. We are told by the "activists" and press that it is because of police brutality and racial bias/prejudice. You may care to believe this and also that all cops are scum oppressors of minorities.

But don't.

The protocol for shooting is this: if the situation necessitates the use of the officer's firearm -- where deadly force is about to be used or has been used by the other parties (reasonably), the officer is to "tap twice" and "evaluate." That is, shoot to kill with two bullets and then see what is up. Typically, if there is more than one officer there, there is sympathy shooting -- the sound is enough to change whatever formulaic evaluation going on the officer's mind and induce him/her to squeeze off a couple. And if it is a stand-off, there may be a great many officers around so induced.

Now this has been the case for a long, long time. But about 15 years or so ago, some FBI agents were in a stand off with a motivated felon ... an agent did the tap twice routine, each of which were fatal shots by themselves. But a fatal shot does not mean the instant death of the target.
Instead, the agent evaluated the situation, during which time the target then shot to death two agents and wounded several more before his heart/brain decided to keel over and pass this mortal coil. The result being the needless deaths of persons protecting society from some of its worst enemies.

Today, the protocol may be tap twice, but law officers intent saving their own skins empty the clip. The real protocol is shoot until the suspect drops. If the suspect moves, shoot it again. So in this recent uproar in New York about a minority youth being hit 9 times by 20 bullets fired at him, my only question is "why was the marksmanship so bad?" And emphatically not, "why did those nasty police officers shoot at him 20 times.

And the reason why minority youths have a disproportionate amount of ammunition shot at them by members of the law enforcement community is this: the youths have the guns that make the situation a "shoot to kill" mandate for personal survival for the officers. Simple. You a bad gang-bangah with a piece, you could be on a slab in the morgue with government issued lead inside your cranium, pronto. Faking a gun with a hairbrush in your hoodie does not exempt you from this rule, it just makes you stupid as well as dead.

A few random thoughts

I was dropped my son off at school this morning and as we pulled up to the drop-off line, he looked at the girl getting out of the car in front and blurted, "I hate that girl."

Whoa ... hang on ... "why?"
"I don't know, I just do."
"You can't drop a bomb like that and not explain yourself."
"Well, it is not so much that I hate her, but more that the girls are just so ... so ... smug, the way the laugh at people and make fun of people. It hurts."
Oh. "So they laugh at you?"
"No, not really -- they just kind of ignore me like I don't exist, I am something like a cockroach to them. But they laugh at my friends and other people."
"So this is a 'popular kids' issue?"
"No, most of the girls are like that."

He got out of the car, wished me and his younger sister a good day and trundled off with a 50 lb. bag of books on his back.

The girl in question: tall, mid-back length chestnut hair, already filling out very tight jeans in a disturbing way for a 14 year old, Uggs ... zits. Would I have found her attractive at my son's age? Probably. Would I recommend that my son have anything to do with her? Absolutely not.

I don't have any fancy statistics or resources on the subject, except for personal observations -- which involve making generalizations. So here goes: from a boy's point of view, girls from the age of ... oh, ten onwards until ... maybe college (at the earliest) are simply not worth the effort. And just maybe, the emotional anguish many women go through from marriage age onwards, bemoaning what assholes men are, is largely their own fault: reaping the seeds that they themselves (and mothers) have sown.

Look, girls practice the systematic torture of boys from a disturbingly early age. Humiliation, ridicule and disdain are the weapons and boys largely have no recourse. Boys are physical, but that option has been out of fashion (at least in the educated or upper classes) for at least a hundred years. Of course, in a Muslim nation, you simply smack the offending woman or girl in the face and move on. Their brothers or fathers might even save you the effort. Here in the US, you can't hit girls. And boys have at least one figurative hand tied behind their backs, jumping on one foot trying to fight back in the verbal war: girls are more advanced in verbal ability from ... just about birth.

But it is puberty and the rush of hormones that starts the 10+ year assault on male-kind. Schools don't help any of this: since the 1960's, educational systems have bent over backwards to address perceived injustices -- and the politically correct philosophy is that boys are fundamentally evil and girls need protection and every advantage to get ahead to achieve "equality." What ever that means. So with impunity, girls assault the egos of the boys, strip them of their dignity, crush ambition and, most importantly, sow the seeds of mistrust and resentment. Boys ... well are for the most part simply not interested in messing with girls' minds and egos. It is not generally speaking a boy's sport.

I know that intra-girl warfare can be brutal, too, merciless and with extreme malice -- that is the residue of the competition for mates exhibited by our ancestors tramping around in the filth of caves and huts. But back then gender roles were pretty well defined: women tended to kids and food preparation (and gathering) and men hunted and protected the clan from violence from other clans trying to get more women or food. Men ruled through violence, not wit. I am not advocating a return to violence, certainly not. But the genetic predisposition of each sex is defined.

Thusly assaulted, wounded and bewildered, boys retreat to the company of each other and learn to mistrust girls and women. The "alpha" males, showboat and grandstand for the assembled company of admiring girls who, contrary to all reason (but not genetic urge) throw themselves at a small select groups of physically advanced and coordinated boys (who are often less than bright). If solely these boys bred with the most "popular" (read socially adept or vicious) girls and all others were excluded, I imagine the human race would have long since died out. But the geeks of this world have an ace up their sleeves, or Bill Gates' case a whole deck of them and a printing machine out back. Brains. So they survive, but they do not forget.

So, when after girls become women and suddenly realize that the "popular" or "alpha" males of secondary school (which have been trained by the girls themselves to be self-absorbed jerks) are less than they have been looking for and likely to mow their lawn in the future as a full time occupation, they join the moaning feminist chorus that there are no good men out there.

Hmmm. What qualities would they be looking for in the non-existent men? Assertiveness? Well, any attempt at assertiveness by the men in question (apart from the aforementioned lawn-mowers) resulted in ridicule at the hands of girls for the best part of the decade, that period in time when habits and outlook are formed. Kindness? Kindness was a weakness to be exploited by girls for the amusement of others and intellectual sport. Intelligence? The intelligent male in high school was a nerd or geek. So by the time women want to find a good partner, the intelligent male had long since found other things else to occupy his mind -- he had to, since sex or a caring girlfriend was out of the question. He decided that work and golf were the next best thing, maybe even better because it meant money. And money, they learned, was indeed good: you could buy all the gadgets you wanted, drive cool cars, fly to Pinehurst to play golf, drink, go scuba diving, see the Red Sox ... and you didn't need women for any of this. And if you happened to get lucky, well that is alright -- get sexual release move on. The much sought-after intelligent men had learned to do without women ... precisely because of the treatment received at the sharp end of women, the tongue.

The Glass Ceiling? It used to exist in the sense that very few women ever got to test it through choice (babies) and simple prejudice. Men at the highest levels of business were unaccustomed to women as equals in their presence and resented having to adjust their behavior. It is bizarre that the UK (where sexism is alive and well) had Maggie Thatcher and three long-serving queens, but the US balks at the concept of a woman President. But do not forget that something else may be at work: if the intelligent male succeeds in business (they may also be "alpha" in the sense of popular when they were at school), who is he going to trust for his most important positions? Likely, it will be his wingman, his buddy or someone like him when times were tough. And not a female. It works the other way too: go to an organization run by women -- spot the male with any sort of power at all. You can't, because inverse sexism is permitted in politically correct society. There are tons of all-women schools, clubs and gyms. Try joining one as a man -- you'd be laughed out of the building. More importantly, men don't want to. If you say inverse sexism is OK because it is "tit for tat" (no pun intended), then you are an idiot because it is precisely that sort of attitude that intelligent people are meant to rise above.

Back to boys and girls.... It is all about trust. It takes time to rebuild trust with women when all that has ever happened to you as a geeky boy was downright awful. It happens to girls too. Some or even many men and women never do recover or even develop into haters of the opposite sex. (Of course, there is the whole "mother" thing -- someone that same boys trusts with his life, but that only serves to confuse the matter. Interestingly, that mother may have been an "alpha" girl and only hung out with the popular jocks, but she simply cannot see why girls are so horrible to her boy.)

Is it happenstance that at least 50% of all marriage today end in divorce? Is it even surprising? I don't think so. I think that it can only get worse as each sex gets more -- not less -- polarized in attitude towards the other. Every women's magazine loudly trumpets how to get equal -- or even -- with men. Every one of these rags spouts venom about the unworthiness of men and how women must stand up for themselves to put things right. In essence, these publications teach women how and why they must hate men: a sort of on-going graduate course in the art of diminishing men women first learned while teenagers. No man can live (I did not say "up") to those standards. I am not even sure that something that could is in fact a man at all. Perhaps, you women want a woman? But then the same women listen to misogynist rap music? What kind of mixed message are men being sent?

But back to the topic at hand. What advice to offer my boy? Son, do not get involved with girls at your age. It can bring you nothing but grief. Don't even try. Just work as hard as you can and keep sane, get the best grades you can, hang out with your buddies and do whatever juvenile things that would other wise earn the scorn of the XX's in your class -- out of their sight or knowledge. Get through this period emotionally intact. So what if you decide to skip the prom? Go to a movie with three of your pals and yuck it up. So what if Jocko Popular managed to get laid? It was probably a horrible and awkward experience for the girl involved. When girls get into their late teens and twenties, they change a little -- or some do at any rate. You will find that there are plenty of simply wonderful, nice, caring girls out there (who at your age are hiding out from the rest of the girls in the library or art room) who will love you, make you happy and content. They will be your best buddy and your wingman. Don't lose the ability to trust them, it will be hard for them too because amazingly, their experience will not be too far dissimilar to your own.

Also remember that a leopard does not change its spots -- no matter how convincing they may be. Once someone is amused at the misfortune of others, count on it in the future. If you need to associate with girls now and you just can't stand it otherwise, go the library, find a math geek or a drama nerd, someone under the radar scope. They're a far better bet for humanity and might actually have something interesting to say.

Are you "sexist?"

According to the Clinton campaign, I certainly qualify as a raging sexist. You see, because I support the notion of intensively questioning the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the next president of the United States, the most powerful country on Earth -- I am sexist.

According to the Clinton campaign, if I supported that pressure, that level of inquiry of Barack Hussein Obama, I'd be racist. So I guess by that measure, I am racist.

But say a candidate is gay ... does this logically follow that I must be a homophobe? If the candidate was physically handicapped ... would my support of questioning be an example of prejudice against the "challenged?"

What is this poop?

Geraldine Ferraro (remember Walter Mondale, does this jog your memory?) came out and called what happened to Hil Liar-Clinton "sexist." Geraldine ran for Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away from being President ... and had no idea what the acronym "ICBM" actually stood for. So she must be in an excellent position to judge what is sexist and what is not. And not that it is relevant at all, but Geraldine's husband's business practices made Hil Liar's Rose Law Firm billing practices and investment opportunities look like Justice Department's handbook on fair dealings. Good judgment then, on the part of the then-DNC to support her as the running mate of Moondale. They could then turn the White House into a fiscal laundromat, that is, return it to the good old days of the LBJ administration.

Bill "the Impeached" Liar-Clinton (or Cliar?), likened the last Democratic campaign debate to a "Swiftboating." Bill, you gormless moron, Hil Liar was asked questions that she refused to answer. Swiftboating involves people making allegations about a candidate's integrity that, while unfair and maybe untrue, only serve to besmirch that candidate's reputation. Hil Liar did that all by herself by failing to respond to articulate and focused inquiry ... at least twice within as many minutes on the exact same subject.

Speaking of which, Hills, where DO you stand on driver licenses for illegal aliens? Yea, or nay? For or again'? Huh? Too difficult a concept?

Which brings us to the root of the matter: she is either too stupid to understand simple English, or too dishonest to come out with a position, preferring to stall and redirect. Since clearly the former is not the case, she exposed herself as -- wait for it -- too dishonest to take a stance by actually answering. "Don't mind the person behind the curtain." She depends on the electorate voting for her as who she appears to be, a carefully crafted media chimera. She is terrified that the electorate -- you and me -- might actually decide to listen and find out what she plans to do to our country if elected.

Not that you would be able to figure that out even if you did listen: during the debate Hil Liar stated that she could not foresee troops leaving Iraq before 2013, while three days later, at a speech she made at Wellesley College (an all-women institution and her alma mater), she declared that the first thing that she would do upon being elected is to "bring our troops home." Classic political ploy, tell the audience what they want to hear. But not only will this not work in today's information age, even with the complicity of the liberal media, it implies a breathtaking arrogance on her part: we are too stupid to notice. But hasn't the Clinton machine always operated on that basis? And sadly, they seem to have been correct.

Sexist ... that really gets my goat. An honest and fair analysis of the notion would render the exact opposite conclusion: to have failed to grill the front-runner would have been sexist precisely because she IS a woman. Can you not see that? If Obama had been the front-runner and the others had failed to grill him, it would have been racist. The implication in both cases is that they need protecting, that the candidates were in some fashion inferior to the white males.

Friends, we are considering the nomination of a candidate to run for election to the most powerful job on Earth, not some diversity-based preference or quota. Do you think that it would be intelligent to put less than the most qualified candidate into office? Would foreign leaders respect an affirmative action candidate more, or would they scorn the whole charade? Whom would Al Qaeda like to see in office? Predictably, the New York Times Liar ran an editorial by Gail "I-am-so-far-out-of-touch-that- I-can-see-the-Rings-of-Saturn" Collins wherein she lauded the toughness of Hil Liar for standing up to the pressure as all the white males piled on to her. "She is one tough woman." Uh, Earth to Sputnik Collins, this is not about her womanhood, it is not about the battle of the sexes, it is a political debate designed to help voters select the most suitable candidate for President.

But since Hil Liar and Sputnik are good friends and the New York Times the official house organ of the Cliar campaign, we can state with some certainty that they have in fact played the gender card. Nothing happens in the Cliar campaign machine that does not get the approval from the highest minions and apparatchiks (suitable phrase given the outright commie income redistribution policies of Hil Liar's past). Only Bill CLiar could step out and shoot his mouth off with impunity -- so maybe the Swiftboating allegation can be shrugged off. But maybe it will stick: we all know that a vote for Hil Liar Cliar is a vote for Bill Cliar to swam around the world as some sort of ex-officio Ambassador of Imperial Hil Liar (and whatever oral sex he might be able to secure for himself in the process).

Similarly, the use by Sputnik of the words "pile on" to describe something happening to a female by a group of males invokes a most sinister image, that of gang rape. And that is EXACTLY what Sputnik and her fellow satellites at the New York Liar wanted you to get out of that editorial. You energize the single female voter out there, the chip on the shoulder feminist who believes that her lot in life is all the fault of some vast male conspiracy, and hopefully for the Cliar campaign, the married women who tend to vote more conservatively. Make no mistake about it. The apparatchiks had it planned that way: if the Obamas and Edwards of this world had any chance of unseating Hil Liar as front runner, they had to come out swinging. "Fine," Hil Liar handlers said, "we can use that to our advantage too" -- because Americans and in particular the precise voters they are targeting for support are gullible and even lust for this type of accusation. They watched OJ, they watch Oprah and they believe that aliens visit the Earth regularly. Speaking of which, they left Rosie O'Donnell behind ... why? What did we Earthlings do to deserve that? I hear that she might even get a show on MSNBC. Huh? Is there an alien spaceship in orbit full of little people with big heads and almond shaped eyes eating popcorn and laughing their asses off at the American public? Probably. That might explain the whole thing.

More inconvenient data

The real deal in terms of political uncertainty -- the inconvenient elephant in the room -- involves Hillary and Al Gore (hereafter "Algore"). You see if Hillary is deemed to become vulnerable, then there is realistically only one "contendah." Even though Algore was defeated, no matter what the liberal weenies say (the margin was found to be bigger in the recount, and when the mail-ins were finally tallied, it was not even close ... so stick that in your collective pipe), he is rehabilitated by the the film "An Inconvenient Truth." Of course, why a pack of lies and untruths can rehabilitate someone is beyond me. Must be something about being liberal.

So this places Hillary in an inconvenient place. Algore is not readily attackable, at least not within the orthodox DNC / liberal movement. He has ascended to elder statesman, adopted his mantle of gray and issues statements of wisdom. He even has a Nobel Prize. Hillary has ... a history of flip-flops, ultra-liberal positions, a legacy of salted Earth tactics. And she is singularly unlikeable.

But Algore's support is almost entirely based on the perception that he is our evironmental savior.... What if someone, say Hillary, were to debunk it. You see, when you disassemble the global warming movement, Algore's positions and statements start to seem absurd. So totally out-of-touch that his support might suddenly vanish for fear of being tarred with the same brush. But then Hillary might have handed the election to the Republicans and the right wing loonies that want their hummers and Jesus to drive them. Difficult position, then. But how might she do it?

Let's look at the hard truths behind the inconvenience of it all. In the 1970's, the common wisdom among scientists was that the Earth was cooling, and rapidly at that. The fear was real that the Earth was about to enter a new Ice Age. Sociologically, this had bad juju written all over it: the great periods of warming were the times of the strongest growth of civilization ... the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming (start of the Renaissance) and the Industrial Revolution . The Dark Ages was a cooling period, as was the Little Ice Age -- and things were not exactly groovy.... The hotest period, however, was about 8000 years ago -- with a gradual cooling until the Roman Warming.

In the 1980's, thanks to the readings commissioned by an oceanographer named Roger Revelle, some scientists noted that the carbon dioxide levels were increasing, as was temperature on a global basis. The imaginative put two and two together and Viola! CO2 was responsible for the increases in global temperatures -- it rapidly became the orthodox, as it means that man, the evil little wanker, was responsible. And in particular, the greedy little capitalist vermin and their willing co-conspirators, the American consumer. Politically sound. Definitely a boost for the anti-globalization crowd.

Then in 1988, a Senator from some hotbed of wisdom (uh, was that state?), held hearings in Washington on the topic. He had earlier been a student of the eminent Dr. Revelle. His name was Algore. At the same time, those supporters of knowledge and honesty known as the United Nations launched the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the "IPCC"). This group commissioned 1500 "experts" to investigate and report -- but in the light of a preface called the Summary for Policymakers, which was drafted by governments and official -- but not the actual scientists. In the process, the exemptions, doubts, ring-fencing, caveats outlined by the scientists were omitted from the part that anyone actually read. It was a political statement, and not a scientific analysis. Had it been submitted to Federal Court, it would have been thrown out as inadmissible for failure to pass the test required of expert evidence. Nonetheless, the first report published in 1991 was not wholly on the bandwagon of CO2 mania. The second report of 1996 featured the thesis by obscure U.S. scientists that CO2 was the culprit, but notwithstanding the heavy criticism by the leading climatologists as to approach and data manipulation, it was embraced as complete scientific consensus on the matter. Not coincidentally, the Summary for Policy Makers of the 1996 report had Algore's fingerprints all over it. So too did the attempt to push the Kyoto BS through the Senate. Algore failed in that particular gerrymandering of evidence and commonsense.

Right before his death, Dr. Revelle tried to draw attention to an article he had written basically throwing some water on the raging CO2 thesis. Algore, mush to his discredit, tried to bury that article, as damaging as it was that his guru might have second thoughts ... or at least some intellectual honesty -- unlike his pupil.

The next milestone in the Global Warming saga was the infamous "hockey stick" graph. This has now been debunked by everyone with more than high school level statistical training. The algorithm used created the same shape almost no matter what data was used. The IPCC (read UN morons) took this graph as the grail of truth on the matter: in the 2001 Third Report, this was the page one, exhibit one. Headlines. Proof of the evil of man. But using the algorithm, the Little Ice Age didn't happen. The Dark Age cooling wasn't. The Medieval Warming a straight line. When the jiggery-pokey was removed, lo and behold ... the Middle Ages was warmer than today. Hmmm.... Something was not right. But the EU bought it hook line and sinker.

The EU believe that Algore is telling the truth when he claims that by 2100 the sea level will rise 20 feet. Florida will be submerged. England, awash. The Netherlands -- gone. But Algore was careless: even the IPCC predicted a worst case senario of 5-15 inches rise. 20 feet? Hyperbole or careless and ignorant? Heedless of truth? And the growth in CO2 ... who really cares about Kyoto when China will pass the US next year as will India shortly after that in CO2 emissions. And they are exempt to all intents and purposes from any attempt to reign in their emissions. So it simply does not matter what Europe or the US does, no matter who is right -- but it certainly makes any hoo-haa over Kyoto silly in the extreme.

Now Hillary, listen up ... here is the killer ap: James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute) and Algore's closest ally in the Global Warming conspiracy, has been obliged to revise his doomsday graphs and correct the data. KNOW NOW that the hottest year of the 20th Century was not 1998, but 1934. Four of the warmest years in the top ten of the past century were in the 1930's. That is inconvenient. Also inconvenient is that most credible evidence shows that since 1998 the Earth has not been getting warmer and in fact may have been starting to cool.

Sun surface activity follows cycles too. And the last 100 years have been active, but evidence shows that this activity is slowing. The correlation of sun surface activity to temperature is strong, without any voodoo hockey stick graphs. Back to the 1970's anyone?

Hillary, a word of reason from you might hedge you Algore exposure -- but it is a dangerous game to play. There are too many out there who fervently believe -- and most of them are on your side of the aisle in Congress.

Christmoween

Christmoween. That is the name of the new holiday celebrated by Americans -- and increasingly, the English. What is Christmoween? It is that "holiday" period extending from the time at which Christmas crap starts appearing in the stores until the day after Christmas (or Boxing Day in Canada and Britain).

Seriously, I saw Christmas crap being hauled out to the display stands in malls and shopping centers around Boston. I have also confirmed that others living in the UK and elsewhere in the US have seen the same. It is not enough that we are besieged with fake merry drivel from Thanksgiving onwards, but it was an unspoken rule that the Christmas season began the day after Turkey Day. I know that in the UK, it used to be a December 1 kick-off.

But something has happened.... The greed of the merchandisers has moved the ball forward. Or is desperation? The need to squeeze out the last possible dime or 10p from the consumer? The press from "above" to induce ever more guilt in the poor shopper to boost spending on goods that are not wanted and the household can ill-afford? Are we crazy?

The stock market is tumbling again as we speak, a result of disappointing earnings, follow-on from the credit crunch, a lower dollar and ... oil hitting $100 per barrel. But since oil is dollar priced, as the dollar slides, it "forces" producers to tamp supply so that the price rises to compensate for lost earnings. As the economy continues to sag, rates will be cut by the Fed -- leading to a lower dollar, higher oil and energy prices, higher home heating and transportation bills ... and lower consumer spending on ... Christmas.

So, in the true American (and UK) fashion, we advertise and promote, pump up the volume and hysteria ... all to induce people to spend senselessly. The result is greater consumer debt, more foreclosures, lower property prices, less personal wealth, etc. The result is also Jingle-frikkin-bells starting November 1. There is a radio station in Kansas City that has ALREADY gone to an all Christmas music format. Say What? Huh? Are you kidding me?

With heating oil going to cost close to double the prices paid two years ago, you have got to believe that Santa is going to skip more than a few houses this year. The fall out will be terrible results for retailers -- count on it. The Grinch will be chortling from the top of Mount Crumpit as Whos everywhere cry and whine: "my credit card has maxed out"; "I have to turn the heating to only 68"; "I couldn't afford to give 6 year old Johnny his new 80 gig playstation"; "it cost me $100 to fill my SUV...."

Welcome to the future, Americans. Yes, you can't afford your 12 mpg behemoth, your blue ox that you so desperately "need" for those days where there is 1/2 inch of snow threatening your existence. Of course, you'd never be caught dead in a people-mover, but ... they do get 25-30 mpg. Remember 1973? I do. I remember the death of the "muscle car" and the birth of 4 cylinder engines in the US of A. Were those cars we produced in response to the 1973 OPEC crunch simply terrible? Yes. Do we have to suffer that again? No, because in the rest of the (non-oil producing) world, they have been paying double this for their fuel ever since 1973 and they have developed WONDERFUL cars that get 40mpg. I drove a Citroen C4 (2.0 litre turbodiesel) last month in Spain and it kicked butt out of nearly anything available for sale here in the US and got 40+ mpg. It also cruised comfortably over 100 mph, and emitted no smoke.

So barring some miracle of automotive conscience allowing cars the rest of the world uses to be imported here -- or better yet, built here, you will have to start to consider taking public transport. Transport which, of course, hardly exists in the country, largely due to the ministrations of the oil and car companies in collusion with Washington. Want to blame the Republicans for this? Then why are the car producing states Democrat controlled -- and always have been? Why is the car lobby able to block needed reform in a Democrat controlled Senate and Congress? Why don't we promote the efficient and clean diesels in this country as they do in Europe (it is more profitable to sell gasoline and make gasoline engines, so you won't see the above-mentioned co-conspirators breaking their butts to introduce them)? But if you drive an SUV -- a TRUCK for government fuel efficiency purposes, and clean air regulations in California, Vermont and Mass., then you are exempt from anything that might make sense. In those states you can drive a Ford Expedition (based on what a Ford F350 pickup?) which get zero mpg, spews Hindenburg volumes of noxious gas, mountains of particulates, but you can't drive a little VW 1.8 liter TDi diesel that gets 45mpg, and tiny amounts of particulates because it is a car and as a result its engine's output is too dirty on a relative basis? Absolute impact to the environment is thrown out the window? What, are we collectively stupid? And the reason the diesel fails at all is because the diesel fuel we allow the oil companies to pump in this country is so dirty that third world nations have banned it? It is all about the sulfur, the relative primitiveness of U.S. built diesels, the profits to be made on the engines and the refining of the fuel -- all of which serve to screw us, the U.S. consumer. And we have liberal weenies crying about global warming -- let's DO something about it, but it will involve more than a little pain here at home.

How? Welcome to putting on an extra sweater in Winter and maybe sweating a little in Summer. Energy for heating and cooling to maintain that "perfect 70 degrees" is an extravagance that has no place in the future. Sorry. Maybe living in the desert is fine during the Winter -- but in the Summer it is insane. Florida is generally too hot for most of us, as is a large part of the Southwest. Santa, are you listening? And if you want to have a McMansion, you will have to pay for the privilege -- and pay dearly. The difference in heating a 7000 sq. ft. house and a 2500 sq. ft. house is huge. And exponential. Sure Santa may have more roof to land his sleigh on, but so too will you lose heat from that same 1/2 acre of roof. Maybe, we need to shut down parts of our houses that we really don't need. I almost always shake my head in wonder at how Europeans manage to live at all in the small poop-boxes they call houses there, but in the context of affordability, they are laughing at us. Well insulated, with smaller windows, and efficient use of space, they can afford their dwellings and energy price rises as a much smaller percentage of available household spending.

France gets over 75% of their electricity from nuclear energy. Just think about that. The green crazies never managed to get much traction in France, although their social welfare system will more than make up for such prudence. But here in the US, we continue to build coal-fired power stations. What's up with that? Instead it is better to make a bunch of Arabs (who'd like to kill us) rich, driving up our national debt, debasing our currency, making us a global laughing stock, a poor debtor nation? We need the Salvation Army out there taking donations for the US Treasury.

See, I am getting back to the topic at hand! Extending the Christmas season to engulf Halloween is a paradigm of actions that won't cure the ills that afflict this country right now. We are already extended way past our means and do not sell date. We are up to our eyeballs in debt as a country. We have borrowed and borrowed to maintain our lifestyle, a lifestyle that we simply could not afford, cannot afford and will not be able to afford. Wishful thinking won't help us, no matter how much Democrats will tell you that is can be solved by taxing those who already pay 90% of the Federal Budget. Our problem is SPENDING. On a national level. No amount of "holiday cheer" is going to change that. And we certainly cannot afford to take 30 million "guest workers" and fund their needs too. We cannot afford the consumption of legal Americans. Going shopping at Wal-mart won't free up the dollars, either ... it is simply writing a check (which would bounce if we wrote it personally) on a national level to China.

Ergo, it sure annoys the hell out of me to hear Jingle-pumpkins -- a sure sign of denial. Screw Bong Croosby. A pox on your sleigh bells. Rudolph might make a good roast.

Until at least after Thanksgiving.