A man breaks into an animal research lab and vandalizes the place, causing over $10,000 in damage. The charges against him? Conspiracy to commit vandalism. According to the charges, he committed "animal enterprise terrorism and cause[d] economic damage to the animal enterprise in an amount exceeding $10,000".
Vandalising a business is terrorism, yet walking into to a building full of soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, yelling 'allahu akbar' and killing 14 and wounding 25 more is just a soldier with mental issues.
Clearly President Obama needs to talk to the prosecutors in this case and tell them to slow down and get all the facts before rushing to judgment.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Photo ops
"The problems plaguing our military hospital system will not be solved with a photo op," Obama said in a statement. Sen Obama March 30 2007, criticizing Pres Bush at Walter Reed hospital
"I hope, but highly doubt, that President Bush will one day realize that supporting our troops is more than a slogan or a photo op.” Sen Harry Reid Jul 20 2007
"Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home." New York Times editorial, Sep 5 2007
Video: President Bush's Surprise Photo Op In Iraq "It's clear that this was nothing more than a chance for the president to use the troops as props" Crooks and Liars.com Sep 2 2007
"Remember Bush's Thanksgiving photo-op in Iraq, with soldiers cheering him as he presented turkee? Guess what, that crowd was screened too. Democrat soldiers don't count for much in Bush's military" Daily Kos Sep 15 2004
"And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was." Keith Olbermann, Sep 4 2007
"Bush’s photo-op in Baghdad only proves the wisdom of Odom’s judgment. What looked like a triumphant visit by the Commander-in-Chief to the heart of a war zone, was actually a desperate attempt to garner support for a failed mission." Mike Whitney June 19 2006
"The American people and our brave troops deserve better than a photo-op for the president and a pep-rally about Iraq." Sen Harry Reid, Oct 14 2005
"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president (Obama) said.
"I hope, but highly doubt, that President Bush will one day realize that supporting our troops is more than a slogan or a photo op.” Sen Harry Reid Jul 20 2007
"Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home." New York Times editorial, Sep 5 2007
Video: President Bush's Surprise Photo Op In Iraq "It's clear that this was nothing more than a chance for the president to use the troops as props" Crooks and Liars.com Sep 2 2007
"Remember Bush's Thanksgiving photo-op in Iraq, with soldiers cheering him as he presented turkee? Guess what, that crowd was screened too. Democrat soldiers don't count for much in Bush's military" Daily Kos Sep 15 2004
"And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was." Keith Olbermann, Sep 4 2007
"Bush’s photo-op in Baghdad only proves the wisdom of Odom’s judgment. What looked like a triumphant visit by the Commander-in-Chief to the heart of a war zone, was actually a desperate attempt to garner support for a failed mission." Mike Whitney June 19 2006
"The American people and our brave troops deserve better than a photo-op for the president and a pep-rally about Iraq." Sen Harry Reid, Oct 14 2005
"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president (Obama) said.
New global warming explanation
Time has an article about a new study in the journal Nature that says it has an explanation about why the amount of carbon in the atmosphere hasn't matched up with global warming alarmists predictions-the oceans were sucking up all that extra carbon!
How do I know that Time doesn't understand that this explanation of ocean carbon is a theory? Because the word never appears any where in the article.
Like the vast forests of the world, which continually suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen, the planet's oceans serve as vital carbon sinks. Last year the oceans absorbed as much as 2.3 billion tons of carbon, or about one-fourth of all manmade carbon emissions. Without the action of the oceans, the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere would have flame-broiled the planet by now.
Wow, who knew the oceans were covering for us evil humans so much. Why, we would be dead if it weren't for the seven seas! But wait, there should be some evidence of this, right? Because if you are a scientist claiming to know why the earth hasn't warmed up as much as was predicted, then you should be able to document your claims, right?
Led by Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a team of researchers reconstructed the amount of carbon that had been annually absorbed by the oceans going back to 1765 — around the time when people began putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. "Over time it seems the oceans are becoming less efficient at taking up manmade carbon," says Khatiwala. "That's concerning over the long term."
Uh, reconstructed? Since nobody was studying the amount of carbon in the oceans in 1765, the researchers must have found a way to measure ocean carbon by drilling Antarctic ice cores, or examined whale bones or even dug into the bottom of the ocean to find their information, right? Those are all respected methods of determining historical mineral data (according to my oceanography professor). Nope, nope of that. What they did was;
Scientists have long known that the ocean is a major carbon sink, but it's been difficult to tease out how much of that carbon comes from man-made processes. Khatiwala and his colleagues solved that problem by mathematically charting seawater temperature, salinity and other measures, and then worked backwards to infer how much man-made carbon was being circulated from the surface and through the deeper waters. They estimated that there are currently 150 billion tons of carbon from man-made sources currently sequestered in the ocean — so much that if all that gas were to be released back into the atmosphere, it would raise carbon concentrations levels to 460 parts per million, already higher than what many scientists believe is the upper safe limit.It is always interesting to note how the media misunderstands science. Scientists look at data and propose theories, and then work towards proving them to be correct. Until it is proven by hard data, a theory is just a (well) educated guess.
How do I know that Time doesn't understand that this explanation of ocean carbon is a theory? Because the word never appears any where in the article.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Itinerary 11-11-09
0700-1100 Free breakfast at Hy-Vee
1130 Free lunch at Legion following flag raising ceremony
1315 Free snack at blood drive
1800 Free dinner at Applebees
Great day to be a veteran, bad day to be on a diet
1130 Free lunch at Legion following flag raising ceremony
1315 Free snack at blood drive
1800 Free dinner at Applebees
Great day to be a veteran, bad day to be on a diet
Friday, November 06, 2009
Perpetuating the myth
Update-here is the short version.
Congressman Tim Walz, who has never yet commented on why he falsely claimed to be a Afghan War vet, perpetuated that myth last week on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Most of the interview with Rep Walz and Ret Gen Barry McCaffrey is uninteresting, until about the 9:40 mark-(H/T to an anonymous commenter)
No effort on the part of Rep Walz to correct that misstatement, even though he had a chance.
I'm not sure which is worse. That Ret. Gen McCaffrey is under the impression that Walz is a combat vet, or that Walz was referred to as a combat vet on live television and choose not to correct the mistake.
Congressman Tim Walz, who has never yet commented on why he falsely claimed to be a Afghan War vet, perpetuated that myth last week on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Most of the interview with Rep Walz and Ret Gen Barry McCaffrey is uninteresting, until about the 9:40 mark-(H/T to an anonymous commenter)
"(the) Congressman's a retired Army Command Sergeant Major with time in combat"
No effort on the part of Rep Walz to correct that misstatement, even though he had a chance.
I'm not sure which is worse. That Ret. Gen McCaffrey is under the impression that Walz is a combat vet, or that Walz was referred to as a combat vet on live television and choose not to correct the mistake.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Doug Hoffman is the reason I joined the GOP
No matter the results in today's election in New York's 23 CD, the grass roots faction of the Republican party has won a huge victory in restoring common sense to the national party.
You would have to have been living under a rock not to know the basics of the story by now. In a special election to replace John McHugh who recently became the new Secretary of the Army, the local Democrats chose their candidate and the local Republicans chose theirs. Unlike a usual election, the GOP county chairs chose their candidate, Dede Scozzafava, directly. No endorsing convention and no primary. Doug Hoffman, a much more conservative candidate, was endorsed by the Conservative Party and a three way race ensued until Scozzafava withdrew over the weekend.
Why is this a win for grassroots conservatives? Just look at last year's presidential election. The choice was between liberal and a radical liberal. Seriously, while I admire John McCain for his service to his country, his political beliefs are not conservative except in a few areas. At best, you can call McCain a moderate Republican, but not a moderate conservative. So in the New York race, grassroots conservatives, the ones mainly behind the Tea Party movement and the August townhall fever, stood up against the GOP party insiders and put their foot firmly down. No more moderate candidates (calling Scozzafava moderate is being generous) and no more spending tens of thousands of dollars of national party money on candidates that wont vote along conservative principles.
Which brings me back to the reason I joined the Republican party. Not because I suddenly became conservative; I've been a solid conservative since 9/11, if not before. Not because it was a popular thing to do; many pundits were announcing the death of conservativism and the GOP earlier this year. No, I removed the fence post from my backside and joined the party for one reason only, and that is to get good conservative candidates on the ballot.
Being an independent has many advantages. It lets you sit above the partisan fray, and make decisions solely based on principle, whatever you believe is best. Being an independent means you are always on the outside, free to criticize the decisions that were made that you had no part in. But being independent also means having to go to the polls and hold your nose while voting for John McCain, and even Norm Coleman. Being an independent means having no say in who the candidates are, you just get to choose between the names on the ballot.
The Republican party both at the national and state level has had several problems over the last decade, not the least of which is losing touch with the principal of fiscal responsibility, and moving farther and farther to the middle to try to get elected. But by far the biggest problem has been the bureaucracy of the party that has lost touch with the common voter, the Joe six-pack or even Joe the plumber. The GOP got lost in its own institutional memory, doing things because they have always been done that way. Putting up candidates who had collected enough favors over the years from party insiders. Conservative principles aren't sexy, and they don't sell well to a generation that increasingly wants to know 'what's in it for me?' But it is those same conservative principles that have served this country so well over its two hundred plus years. And it is those same conservative principles that can save this country from the impending national catastrophes we face of an exploding federal debt and massive government interference in the free market. Selling those principles to the voters means explaining it in a way they can understand. And I don't mean just by way of Twitter and Youtube, although those are important parts of the communication battle. But the message itself is the key, not the medium.
The GOP strategy over the last few years has been to move farther away from conservative principles because it didn't know how to sell them to the voters. What we should have been doing is finding candidates and leaders than can articulate exactly why conservative principles will benefit that common man, and more importantly why it will benefit their children. There is no reason that the GOP shouldn't get 75 percent of the vote from parents, as we explain what the future will look like for their kids under liberal and conservative governments. We need candidates who can stand before a crowd of college students and explain to them that while they might benefit now from free tuition, it will hurt them in the long run. Candidates who can explain why free health care is not what we will get from health care reform.
So how did Doug Hoffman get me to join the GOP? Well, he actually didn't. Not Doug, anyway. But the victory of common sense grassroots Tea Party conservatives in choosing the best candidate for NY-23 is exactly the reason I joined the party-to make sure the GOP picks conservative candidates. In essence, it is the same argument we use about voting in general. If you don't vote, your voice wont be heard. If you don't help pick the candidates that the party puts forth, then your voice wont have been heard. And lest anyone think that one man can't make a difference (although no one in Minnesota should ever believe that after the Coleman recount), consider this-
On Jan 19th, I attended my first local GOP meeting, because of the events of the next day-the inauguration of Pres Obama. Less than eight months later, I started attending monthly meetings of the candidate search committee for the 1st Congressional District. My voice is being heard. Is yours?
You would have to have been living under a rock not to know the basics of the story by now. In a special election to replace John McHugh who recently became the new Secretary of the Army, the local Democrats chose their candidate and the local Republicans chose theirs. Unlike a usual election, the GOP county chairs chose their candidate, Dede Scozzafava, directly. No endorsing convention and no primary. Doug Hoffman, a much more conservative candidate, was endorsed by the Conservative Party and a three way race ensued until Scozzafava withdrew over the weekend.
Why is this a win for grassroots conservatives? Just look at last year's presidential election. The choice was between liberal and a radical liberal. Seriously, while I admire John McCain for his service to his country, his political beliefs are not conservative except in a few areas. At best, you can call McCain a moderate Republican, but not a moderate conservative. So in the New York race, grassroots conservatives, the ones mainly behind the Tea Party movement and the August townhall fever, stood up against the GOP party insiders and put their foot firmly down. No more moderate candidates (calling Scozzafava moderate is being generous) and no more spending tens of thousands of dollars of national party money on candidates that wont vote along conservative principles.
Which brings me back to the reason I joined the Republican party. Not because I suddenly became conservative; I've been a solid conservative since 9/11, if not before. Not because it was a popular thing to do; many pundits were announcing the death of conservativism and the GOP earlier this year. No, I removed the fence post from my backside and joined the party for one reason only, and that is to get good conservative candidates on the ballot.
Being an independent has many advantages. It lets you sit above the partisan fray, and make decisions solely based on principle, whatever you believe is best. Being an independent means you are always on the outside, free to criticize the decisions that were made that you had no part in. But being independent also means having to go to the polls and hold your nose while voting for John McCain, and even Norm Coleman. Being an independent means having no say in who the candidates are, you just get to choose between the names on the ballot.
The Republican party both at the national and state level has had several problems over the last decade, not the least of which is losing touch with the principal of fiscal responsibility, and moving farther and farther to the middle to try to get elected. But by far the biggest problem has been the bureaucracy of the party that has lost touch with the common voter, the Joe six-pack or even Joe the plumber. The GOP got lost in its own institutional memory, doing things because they have always been done that way. Putting up candidates who had collected enough favors over the years from party insiders. Conservative principles aren't sexy, and they don't sell well to a generation that increasingly wants to know 'what's in it for me?' But it is those same conservative principles that have served this country so well over its two hundred plus years. And it is those same conservative principles that can save this country from the impending national catastrophes we face of an exploding federal debt and massive government interference in the free market. Selling those principles to the voters means explaining it in a way they can understand. And I don't mean just by way of Twitter and Youtube, although those are important parts of the communication battle. But the message itself is the key, not the medium.
The GOP strategy over the last few years has been to move farther away from conservative principles because it didn't know how to sell them to the voters. What we should have been doing is finding candidates and leaders than can articulate exactly why conservative principles will benefit that common man, and more importantly why it will benefit their children. There is no reason that the GOP shouldn't get 75 percent of the vote from parents, as we explain what the future will look like for their kids under liberal and conservative governments. We need candidates who can stand before a crowd of college students and explain to them that while they might benefit now from free tuition, it will hurt them in the long run. Candidates who can explain why free health care is not what we will get from health care reform.
So how did Doug Hoffman get me to join the GOP? Well, he actually didn't. Not Doug, anyway. But the victory of common sense grassroots Tea Party conservatives in choosing the best candidate for NY-23 is exactly the reason I joined the party-to make sure the GOP picks conservative candidates. In essence, it is the same argument we use about voting in general. If you don't vote, your voice wont be heard. If you don't help pick the candidates that the party puts forth, then your voice wont have been heard. And lest anyone think that one man can't make a difference (although no one in Minnesota should ever believe that after the Coleman recount), consider this-
On Jan 19th, I attended my first local GOP meeting, because of the events of the next day-the inauguration of Pres Obama. Less than eight months later, I started attending monthly meetings of the candidate search committee for the 1st Congressional District. My voice is being heard. Is yours?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Global warming? I'm all for it!
This attempt at a clever ad actually backfires terribly-it makes men want global warming to take place! I think I'll go start up my pickup and let it run for a while just to melt the icecaps a little faster.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
