Oils Well That Ends Well

With gas nearing the four dollar a gallon mark, here in the hinterlands of Illinois, a small cul-du-sac off the main drag in the bitter heartland of this great nation, kinda thought it time to get a few thoughts together regarding same, so here goes.

But first, a joke:

There was an old man sitting on his porch listening to his radio while watching the rain fall. Over the radio came a loud warning siren and the announcer said ... "Evacuate the area! A Flood is coming!" Right after the warning the water started coming over the porch and into the house.

The old man moved to the second floor looking out the window, when a rescue boat came and the people on board said,"You can't stay here the flood is here!" Please come with us."

The old man replied, "No, God will save me." So the boat left. A little while later the water was up to the second floor, so the man climbed up onto the roof. This time a helicopter flew over head and through a loud speaker said "You are going to drown if you stay here! Please come with us!"

The old man again replied,"God will save me." So they flew off to get others stranded.

An hour later the water was up over the roof and sweeps the man into the flooding water, where he drowns and goes to heaven. When he awakens, he is extremely mad and disappointed. When he sees God he asks him, "Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "You arrogant man! I sent you a warning, then a boat, then a helicopter!! Yet you willingly refused my help so obviously offered, then have the gall to say I ignored your pleas."

There are ever increasing demands placed on our countries need for all types of energy. The nations industries need for (natural) resources to produce products for other companies and the general public. And an ever increasing desire to become truly independent of foreign sources.

The increase in power to meet the needs of families as they find more ways to improve their lifestyle with bigger televisions/entertainment systems/computers. More labor saving devices, larger refrigerators, deep freezers for the bulk buying from Costco, Sam's Club, or even buying meat/poultry in bulk from the local butcher (thus getting it at a cheaper per pound rate). Lawn and garden equipment to keep the homestead looking sharp. Then there is the cost of keeping the family wheels on the road.

Keeping our industrial engine running (with power) and, as noted above, resources to produce the products we need and want. Cheap enough energy (read fuel) to transport produce, products, and people from points "A" to points "B".

There has been a mad and not very well thought out rush to turn to bio-fuels as, if not "the answer", an answer to at least part of this concern. Sadly, it is now being realized this is at the very least a short sighted foolish "solution". The physical demands, land requirements, resulting drastic changes in commodity prices, threaten to not only weaken an already shaky economy, but will end up causing more instability in parts of the world which can ill afford it, due to people already lacking for the minimal basics in foodstuffs seeing the trickle offered now to come to a complete stop.

Add to this, the dirty little secret that bio-fuel is in the end no more friendly to the environment, due to energy(s) used in the manufacture of same, as well as the waste produced, and in the loss of efficiency in mpg (meaning more will be needed to meet the same miles driven by good ol regular gas), as to make it a loss all the way 'round.

But what are we to do cry the people?

Returning to the "joke" at the beginning of this post. We have been given the answer (at least for the next 100-500 years). That we have through our arrogance refused to take advantage of it, means we only have ourselves to blame for where we are now.

Yes, the progressives/liberals/tree huggers actions, along with the media doing their thing to muddy the waters (and sell papers and air time at the best prices possible), are instrumental in why we are where we are. But we of the more conservative/adult/responsible side of the street are at fault as well.

Folks, we are enablers! When we should have told the kids to shut up and leave the management of our energy needs to the adults. Instead, we gave in to their cries of "nuclear power is evil" (cause it might go "melty" or "boom"). So we gave up on that by regulating it to the point of near extinction.

Then there was the move to remove the poisons exiting the exhausts of the hundreds of thousands of happy motorists in this country. First is was lead. Then, lead by the eco-wienies out in la la land ... err California, a new environment friendly fad came to the fore. Cafe blends. Yes, now we had to have different blends of petrol for not only different times of the year (winter and summer) but for different areas of the country as well. The fly in this ointment was at the same time as these demands were being placed in effect, there were fewer and fewer refineries to produce same. Thus, the cost for production went up as demand began to exceed production. (And of course the evil oil companies were prevented from economically building new refineries, that would not be environmentally friendly .... or should that be in a more politically incorrect (but far more honest light) manner, stated as "Yes, we sure do need more refineries, preferably built close to the raw material (oil), but not in my back yard!!"

Last but not least there was the push to prevent new drilling for oil. Wither it was on land, or off shore, it was deemed verboten. Every reason in the environmental bible was given, from harming plant and animal life, to raping Mother Gia. And we, gave in.

We, like the fictional pastor above, have asked for help. To be delivered from our energy dependent bonds.
And our prayers have been answered in more way then one.

People, the water is up to our necks. We have been tossed a life preserver. Let us take hold and use what has been given to the best of our abilities. Lest we face our own final judgment, as our civilization crumbles upon the dust heap of history. And when, in some future time and place the truth is unearthed, that we in fact had the means to continue on, but willfully chose to ignore what was given. Said "Thanks , but no thanks." Then we will be judged, much like the fictional old man as being arrogant willful fools, most deserving of our fate.

Truth in Advertizing ...

... is a good thing to have. And is in (very) short supply regardless of which political side of the fence you are on. But in an effort to help a terrorist loving, race baiting, piss-poor excuse for a human being ... err "fellow Illinoisan who wants to do good on a massive scale, by implementing change" ™ , I have developed a straight forward no holds barred campaign button.

Yes, that is a mushroom cloud. And yes, I am willing to bet if Obama-lama-dingdong gets the Presidential nod, there will be one or more of those in our future. Though not the change I think he has in mind, it will be major change indeed.

H/T to both the amazing SondraK and the always engaging commentary and photo work provided by "Rodger, the Real King of France" for their posting about and pointing me to this bit of logo fun.

Goalpost Fixing 101

For those of you who happen to drop by here from time to time (I know you're out there, cause I keep hearing the back door to the 'puter slamming in the middle of the night.) You probably have noticed the many fine people who have their home on the net listed on the left hand side of this bit of fluff.

A lady who has always been a most welcome read, and rich source of food for (well reasoned) thought Kim's "real wife", the charming Connie DuToit, has turned her keen mind towards something which has been glaringly apparent (and none the less, ignored). We (across the board, but particularly more so on the "progressive" side of the street) have quite forgotten either how to, or perhaps closer to the truth, what constitutes a proper "debate".

Back in "the olden days" ™ when civics was at least passingly taught in school, the ground rules for (a) debate were rather clear and concise. One debates by presenting some selected thought or idea, usually given as a (declarative) statement. At this point some one or some group will provide factual evidence in backing (or not) said statement. Assuming there is an opposing view(s). persons supporting said view will, in turn, provide a counter point, again backed by factual evidence. This continues on until further evidence to support (and/or disprove) is exhausted, or the body of evidence is so great on one side as to provide a decisive conclusion one way or the other.

Be it a radio or tv "talk show", the travesty currently foisted upon us otherwise known as "Political Debates", or discourse across the interweb, there has been frightfully little honest debating, and far more goal post moving (and the majority of said moving being done by agenda driven useful progressive idiots of all stripes) then should ever have been put up with in a so called civil (and or well educated/informed) society.

However, Connie in her comment section to the above linked post, provides the best answer to "Goalposts on coasters".

"WE have to call them on it. If they move the goal posts after our last point is made, then we have to refuse to answer until they concede they lost the last point. If they don’t, then they aren’t arguing in good faith, and that should be pointed out to the peanut gallery.

Be bold and judicious in the use of “Until you concede that you lost the last point and your data was wrong, I refuse to consider additional issues. Do you concede the last point?” "

And say that until they agree or give up. You can add “...and if you don’t concede that you lost the point or bring new evidence so your point can be reconsidered, then I can only assume that you are arguing in bad faith and are engaging in propaganda.”
Source: Connie Du Toit

In short, turn out the lights, the party's over!!! Well said, madam, well said!

An Obamanation

If I were to gamble and suggest who might, in 50 to 100 years from now, be recognized as our generations answer to Kipling (at least as far as verse goes), my choice would be the prolific Russ Vaughn. He never fails to satisfy ... need proof? Happy to provide same. Here is his latest, enjoy!

Journalistic Excellence, Not if The Public Can Help It!

On somewhat of a tangent, deep into this crapstain of a political season, it appears to be time to look at one of the quivering lipped "messengers of truth" ™ . I know this is already a day or two old, and as such might be considered old news, but I can't pass it up.

Roy Peter Clark has a column up over at Poynter, where he takes a long heartfelt look at a recent Sacred Heart University poll: "Americans Slam News Media on Believability." along with the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" flung at the media by (*gasp*!!) us, the public at large. Have a tissue or two handy, after reading it you may need it. I was all misty eyed myself. Oh, us heartless uncaring, unknowing, heathens! We are (collectively), the most ungrateful a bunch of bastards as ever there were. Why, after all the media has tried to do to for us!!

Over at NRO, Kevin D. Williamson responds and does better then I. At least he is able to pick out what he considers to be the "killer paragraph". After re-reading Clark's bit of offal, in hopes of finding something on which to point and laugh at opine, I threw up my hands in despair. It reads even worse the second (or third or fourth!!) time. It is as damning a bit of evidence, in that maybe, maybe, the pollsters over at Sacred Heart University, as well as the public at large, are spot on in their perceptions of the media. If nothing else, it shows us (the ungrateful biased media critics that we are) how thin skinned (at least some of) the media is, or how poor their research skills are. Specifically, in the case of Clark's piece, if not poorly researched, then intentionally lacking in readily available evidence as to what might constitute our perception of "media bias". (Ok, I'll drop a clue, how about the "evil solder stories" willingly endorsed by The New Republic, as a recent example of not only bias, but piss poor fact checking, for starters, Clark?? ... And this is going with the Williamson line of thought about sticking to just the print media ...damn, this is too easy!)

But in the end, all this inquiring mind wants to know is whither or not Clark is able to get his sippy cup filled (on tearful demand), and has a ready supply of teething biscuits.

Off Come The Gloves

Although Fred did not do as well as one would have hoped, I will stand by him until he elects to end his campaign. I feel there may be an outside chance at the GOP Primary, assuming he is still in it at that point. However, I am not blind to reality in that this is, at this point, looking more and more like a long shot. That having been said, there is always the chance the Democrats will self destruct in spectacular fashion.

The gloves seem to be finally coming off for the Democrats, as Clinton and Obama do their version of "Rock'em Sock'em Robots" ™ .

As Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.

"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.

"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.

Obama persisted, suggesting the Clintons were both practicing the kind of political tactics that had alienated voters.

"There was a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate," Obama said. "I think that part of what people are looking for right now is someone who is going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in Washington."

Clinton countered: "I believe your record and what you say should matter."

Sheesh, although I don't agree with Obama on damn near anything, I have to give him points for trying to bitchslap Her Thighness and her (one wonders for how long) husband, the one time Philanderer-in-Chief, Bill. As for her last comment above, in bold ... if that were really the case, you would have been either laughed out of office or in jail, or both quite some time ago ... don't you think?

John Edwards, who badly trails his two rivals, tried to stay above the fray while pleading for equal time.

"Are there three people in this debate, not two?" he asked.

One can imagine him thinking (?) "And if they don't let ME talk, I am gonna hold my breath and turn blue until they do!!" What a tool!

The bitter exchange underscored the closeness of the race for the party nod. Obama captured the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, Clinton bounced back with a win in New Hampshire and the two shared the spoils in Nevada. The first-in-the-South primary on Saturday in South Carolina is expected to produce a strong turnout from black voters, who could make up more than 50 percent of the Democratic electorate.

Hmmmm, are we "oh fearless and intrepid reporter", trying to say the all important black vote ™ which the Dems have been pandering for all these years might actually go toward a real black? Instead of the wife of the nations "First Black President" ™ © ? Why the mind boggles! That the voters might actually do something akin to thinking for themselves vice follow the established party line like so many lemmings. (Granted, both candidates are liberal to the extreme, but at least there is a choice.)

The article, cross posted at Drudge, continues on with Edwards joining Clinton (Ok, sis I will stand by you, against the mean black man! ... If you promise to give me the VP nod when you get nominated.) in trying to "bash" Obama. The whole thing is a wonder to behold, and I think is just the tip of the ice berg as the race for the Democratic nod really starts to heat up. Bring you popcorn and beer kids....this is gonna get interesting!!!

The Scary GOP

December 15, 2007 7:43 PM

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson reports: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic hopeful John Edwards, lamented with Iowa caucus goers about her fear of the Republican Party. Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic hopeful John Edwards, lamented with Iowa caucus goers about her fear of the Republican Party. "Republicans should scare us in a lot of ways," Edwards said as she was introducing her husband at a town hall in Dubuque, Iowa.

Sheesh ... You, or your husband, (or any of the other wanna-be potential presidents) may annoy me. Ya'll may even make me want to toss the nearest blunt object at hand towards the tv. Sadly, if it were not for the fact that so many in this country actually buy into what ya'll are saying, a bright future as comedians would be awaiting you all. But scare me, not even on your best day. So how is it that a number of the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls, cause you to break out in a cold sweat? Did one of them hide her husbands curling iron? Or did another tell Elizabeth she doesn't look 10 pounds heavier on television ... she looks 25 pounds heavier???

Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, "He seems like a nice charming guy," before saying that Huckabee, "doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me."

One hopes her husband isn't as muddled in his thought process as she is. Looking for "Mike Huckabee kids with guns" on Google came up with a goose-egg. The best one can find on Huclabee's stance on guns and the second amendment is here. Regarding his feelings for (or against) evolution, he answers quite nicely here Decided not to even bother with the "ending violence in our inner-city" (Her inner-city?? She owns it?? And if so, why isn't she and her hubby taking care of the problem ... if it's their inner city and all.) As for the blockquote in toto: It may be a wild guess on my part but I bet if I found a complete audio file of the above, there might be a very good chance things about Huckabee where taken out of context.

She went on to warn about the larger party, saying, "Karl Rove may not be working in the White House anymore but you can pretty much be sure he’s going back in the presidential race... I believe he’s going to be back and he’s going be doing that same kind of Rovian politics that we’ve seen before — the kind of attacks that we saw against Sen. McCain in South Carolina we can expect to see against our nominee, 'swift boating,' all of that kind of stuff again."

Wow, the Dems sure have a fixation of ol' Karl Rove. She seems more afraid of him then Ebanezer Scrooge was of Jacob Marly and his chains. Perhaps if they came up with honest to god solutions to the problems and concerns this country (and to a greater or lesser extent, the world) is facing, the Mr. Rove wouldn't be a concern. Oh, but that's right, all the Dems perport to be interested in are "feelings" and not realistic, concrete solutions. Get over Rove...that is sooooo 2004. (And for that matter, get over Bush as well.)

John Edwards has been spending the last week campaigning in Iowa. Elizabeth joined him recently and has been making her presence felt by speaking at various moments throughout town hall meetings. Actor and supporter Kevin Bacon joined Edwards on Saturday, surprising audiences with a performance from the Bacon Brothers Band, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that this bus tour is being headlined by Elizabeth.

And yet another democrat contender is found to be not only using his wife as a major mouthpiece for his campaign ... in his (Edwards) case he is not hiding behind her skirt, he is hiding underneath it.

Pleading her husband’s case, she told caucus goers that Edwards could survive the Republican attack machine: "We have to have a candidate who stands up, can take the punches and give it back to them."

Boy am I confused. First Mrs. Edwards says her hubby can "survive the Republican attack machine", then in the next breath she states "We have to have a candidate who stands up, can take the punches and give it back to them.". So which is it Mrs. Edwards? You either support your husband with your fist sentence, or you are still looking for a candidate as evidenced by your second sentence.

Ah well, guess when you are constantly living in fear of the "Scary GOP" ™ , you can't be expected to separate fact from fiction. Especially when you have the friendly folks from the media being enablers of your phobia and all.

Now you want to hear something really scary? If I happened to hear of an accounting of Mr Edwards monthly hair care expenses ....now that would be scary!

A floating turd ...

no matter how many times you flush, always tries to re-surface. You know this to be true. They refuse to exit the crapper... going quietly into the night.

So it would seem to be the case with that traitor err ... decorated Navy zero ... John "EFFEN" Karry(did you know he was in Viet Nam???). Just when you think this turd has finally left the commode, up to the surface he comes.

I have not a single word of kindness or support for this piece of human excrement. He violates what is good and decent about being a Naval Officer. No, I wasn't one, but had the honor and privilege to have served with and under quite a number of dedicated, professional, personally accountable men and woman. Officers who took their oath of duty quite literally to heart. Kerry, isn't worthy of licking their boots, and his actions past and present besmirch them all.

My blood pressure is heading north just typoing this. So to provide a brief refresher you could look at my post on Aug 5th 2004 regarding Kerry (I would link it, but the archives seem to be a bit hinky... though going back to Aug on the monthly Archives seems to work ... at Snugg Harbor ... not at CIA), or more importantly head over to The Patriot Post and read their take on the junior scumbag Senator from Teddy "the floater" Kennedy's personal playground. His recent antics, have caused him to float to the surface of the political cesspool. Can we finally get it right and flush him out to the backwaters of inequity once and for all?

From The Land of Sky Blue Waters ...

Fox News November 29, 2007-- Scientists have found a new threat to the planet: Canadian beer drinkers.

Hmmmm, how can this be?? Are the chemicals in the beer suspect, the brewing process, perhaps it is the "outgassing" when each can or bottle is opened?

The government-commissioned study says the old, inefficient "beer fridges" that one in three Canadian households use to store their Molson and Labatt's contribute significantly to global warming by guzzling gas- and coal-fired electricity.

It's not the beer, it's the evilllllll refrigerators!!!! But I have a solution! instead of using coal-fired or gas generated turbines to produce electricity....Go Nuclear! There, problem solved. Oh, wait a min, it seems nuke power is considered evil too. What to do, what to do...

"People need to understand the impact of their lifestyles," British environmental consultant Joanna Yarrow tells New Scientist magazine. "Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home. This research helps inform people — let's hope it has an effect."

Ah, Joanna ... perhaps you have never wintered over in the Great White North, or even in the Midwest of the US of A. We gets cold during the winter, and our beer is just one of nature's ways (Ok, I was being nice, after all the eco-folks are probably Ghia worshipers. If I had said God's, it would have confused them.) And as it is, we only need to use the fridges from late sprint to early fall. And in Canada, that is about 4 weeks total outta the year, so cut us some slack Aye?

The problem is that the beer fridges are mostly decades-old machines that began their second careers as beverage dispensers when Canadians upgraded to more energy-efficient models to store whatever Canadians eat besides doughnuts and poutine.

Hmmm. Fox News slamming the eating habits of our neighbors to the north??

University of Alberta researcher Denise Young, who led the study, suggests that provincial authorities hold beer-fridge buy-backs or round-ups to eliminate the threat — methods that Americans use to get guns off the streets.

Wow!!! As they would say in the adult movie industry this is the "money shot". Denise, not only has the typical socialist/progressive solution (To, I might add, what in reality is a non-problem.) . She manages to get her digs in on the evil cowboys south of Canada, along with our scary guns.
Come on Fox, what was it another slow news day. Folks getting tired of reading about Drew Peterson? Not enough scandals in sports? If we want to read about this kind of pop (or should we say beer in this case) science, we can turn to the NY Times.

As for our Canadian friends, you might want to start whacking a few tree huggers up your way. Cause when they start messing with your beer ... isn't it getting personal?

Tired Of The Progressives? It's Our Fault! .

Was watching a video clip from yesterdays "Youtube Debate" over at the Rott. My first thought was Senator Biden is yet another of the kool-aid drinking, "the State knows what's best for you", I'm gonna make this MY err ... a perfect world even if I have to ram it down your throat and or (have someone ELSE) take out the whole lot of you, in order to do so, asshats. And that he is. And he is a danger (as are most all other liberal/statist/progressives ... but that is a story for the not to distant future) to most, if not all, of our Constitutional guarantees.

But upon a bit of reflection. Mr Biden (he ain't my Senator ... not that the ones I have are any better ... and trust me they are not!) is not the only one at fault here. Because a large part of the blame for what we have to put up with in Congress, the Senate, the White House (and by extension, the Supreme Court) is our fault!

When did this country or more correctly, the majority of it's population, forget or chose to ignore, our responsibilities?

We complain about the erosion of our rights and liberties. Yet we not only continue to elect people who spend an ever greater part of their time in elected office stripping them away. We bemoan the fact with each passing day it seems there is a new attack on our "rights", yet at the same time we collectively sit in the comfort of our homes, mentally (if nothing else) saying; "Ok, you just crossed the line, and this really torques me off!!" (Or language a tad more salty then that.) But within a day or two (Letters written to the non-listening elitist cadre otherwise known as the Senate/Congress, or phone calls to same being used if we REALLY get riled.) do nothing more then make yet another line in the sand a bit further out then the last. And I don't single myself out for any exemplary treatment, I am as guilty as the rest.

Why?

1. We are too comfortable. We have it pretty damn good (and the left knows it). My generation (the baby boomers) and the one immediately following, have had the highest standard of living of any group of peoples on this earth. This leads to the second point

2. We don't want to really rock the boat. We (despite the left and the media remarks to the contrary) are all social creatures and we want to co-exist with our fellows as much as possible. And life, despite the occasional spikes, is good. (Or so we are constantly reminded by the media ... look how bad the rest of the world is ... see how much America wastes compared to them?)

3. We are getting older. Yeah, I know that 50 is the "new 35-40", would someone tell that to my knees and other joints, they seem to be still on the old time table. Fact is, we might have the wisdom/maturity/experience level which can, to some degree, compensate for the seemingly endless energy and drive of youth. But knowing all that we amassed/built up/saved up for would most likely be gone if we elected to "push the reset button", is a very sobering thought. We need to remember the founders of this country gave their all to secure the liberties we see eroding before our eyes. Can we, as those who inherited these birthrights do no less?

4. We are Nice Guys - When we should be Adults (part 1)
When times are good in this country, we are more then willing to try and figure out if there is a way to share the wealth with those less fortunate. Especially if we have been in difficult straits ourselves. Again, human nature plays a part. We are a charitable people. And so, over the course of the 60's, 70's and some of the 80's we collectively allowed for vast sums of monies to be used in what was known as "the war on poverty" or "The Great Society". It was an honorable thing to strive for and based on good intentions (yeah, I know where that road goes). But we were nice guys ... when we realized the war on poverty turned into nothing more then the creation of a welfare state/class (Whom the progressives use as yet another group of victims needing to be "protected" ... for their own good of course.), we should have stepped in and put a stop to it then and there. We didn't. Not until the 90's was any substantive changes put in place to stop the monies going out.

5. We are Nice Guys - When we should be Adults (part 2)
The liberal mantra, often said before, is that we only do things because we are "meanspirited", "evil", or just our and out corrupt. When in reality our actions are based not on personal gain, or because our strings are being pulled by some mysterious cabal/military-industrial complex, or religious zealotry, or for you lefty bigots out there- "those evil Zionist joooooows". Rather we do them because they must be done. This is true on a personal level. In the raising of families. It is true on the local level, in the desire to live in a healthy vibrant community. And is also true at the National level. Wither it is fighting a war, cutting wasteful spending, lowering taxes, or trying to get government out of the home and business. (Sadly, that is what the Republican party used to stand for. It seems to have morphed into something altogether different over the past 8 years. But that is a story for a later date.) As reasoning, thinking, adults knowing this to be true, we do our best to act accordingly, in any given situation, no matter how hard it may be to do so.

Yet, as a political entity (the GOP), or as a philosophical point of view (conservatism/moralistic/some neo-libertarian), we often refuse to face our adversaries directly and call them on points of contention. We accept diversity for diversity's sake. Forsaking the ideal of accepting an individual as just that... an individual who should be held accountable for their actions (for good or ill) and not based on their gender/race/color/creed. We have allowed for the beginning (or at least the ground work) of the balkanization of America. With the liberals bringing about the constant formation of new classes/types of victims, and the acceptance of allowing every class/race/ethnicity their own hyphen before "American". "American" should be all you ever need to say when someone asks "Where you from?" period. And English should be the first language spoken (at least in the school or when conducting business with the public at large) when spoken to. Yes there are, and perhaps will always be, "Little Italy's, "Greektowns", Chinatowns, ect. And one should not be surprised to hear the native language of those who live there being spoken. Or their culture being proudly on display. This is all part of assimilation in to the melting pot which is America. But at the end of the day English first, Spanish, German, Chinese, Polish or which ever your flavor is, second. But we let this go to the wayside. Out of a misplaced sense of "fairness" perhaps, but that "being a nice guy" attitude seems to be the driving force behind it.

6. We are shrinking in numbers. Those who hold our countries original ideals and form of governance (the Constitution, rule of law, a country composed of Americans - not hyphenated sub groups of various origins), due to the tactics of progressives and their harlots in the main stream media, though still formidable, are shrinking in size. And yes, there will be those in the next generation who will carry the torch, but unless they can out procreate and then instill with in their progeny their same beliefs, they will be an even smaller percentage. As brought up at Personal Effects we may soon be nothing more then the remnants spoken about. "Jobs" don't come along all that often. Making the task of keeping the spark alive, until such time as humanity is ready to light the torch of liberty and freedom once again, all that much harder.

"Mom, We're Tired ... We Don't Wanna Play Any More ... "

"This is too much like work!"

The Democratic presidential candidates will line a stage in Charleston, S.C., tonight for their first official debate.

And already, debate fatigue is setting in.

The Democratic contenders have taken part in three "unofficial" debates this year, on top of numerous other "forums" sponsored by various political constituencies. The schedule is only going to get more demanding: After tonight's debate, sponsored by CNN and YouTube and the first of six sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, there will be a crush of events, culminating in one week in early August when unofficial debates are planned in Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles

But Honey, I thought you and your little friends wanted to "play politics". You and your friends were going to have fun pretending you were trying to become the next President of the United States.

But Maaaaaaaamm ... Those pesky kids from down the street said they wanted to play too. So we said they could be the media asking us questions. We didn't think we would have to give honest answers ... or at least the same answers to the same questions ALL THE TIME! Having to remember all our liestall talescampaign promises is HARRRD!

Well, your father and I always said that if you don't tell the truth, it is harder to have to remember the story you told then to say what you honestly feel.

At the end of a recent gathering in Detroit sponsored by the NAACP, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) were overheard discussing their desire to limit the number of participants in the process, as well as the number of debates themselves.

The conversation, which the two candidates appeared to think was private but was caught on an open microphone, captured what strategists, particularly in the top campaigns, have been saying privately all year. Other candidates outside the top tier, particularly Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), blasted the discussion as a slight.

And now, that little baby Johnny Edwards and Hilly are saying if we don't just let them and maybe Obama (cause he's cool, and all us KIDS like him) be the only ones talking, they are going to start yelling "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" real loud while holding their fingers in their ears if the rest of us want to debate. It's not fair! Crazy Dennis K says they are just meanies!

The next DNC-approved debate is scheduled for Aug. 19 in Iowa, followed by an official debate in New Hampshire in late September and four more debates in early-primary states after that. With the candidates already spending so much time in the early-voting states, those debates are considered the least disruptive to meeting the other demands of campaigning.

But some of the others -- for example, a debate focusing on gay and lesbian issues in Los Angeles on Aug. 9 -- are putting strains on the campaign schedulers, who are already caught between finding time for the candidates to spend in early states and finding time for fundraising. The evolving and ever advancing primary calendar has made the crunch worse, several strategists for Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as complaining about the debates.

So how many of these debates were you and your friends going to have?

Gee mom, we wanna talk to EVERYONE, so they all can hear what we have to say! But it's getting boring and we have to listen to crazy Dennis, and all the others...and now that Johnny, Hilly, and Hussian think they are better then the rest of us... it isn't fun any more.

It is a much smaller problem on the Republican side, where there has not been a debate since June 5 and where there are fewer advocacy groups demanding attention from the field. The next GOP debate is scheduled for early August, when all the candidates will appear on ABC's "This Week," hosted by George Stephanopoulos.

Dear, why don't you do what those nice republican's are going to do?

Awwww mom ... they're mean, they wanna act just like adults...they don't have pretend fairy castles for every one, or great tasting kool-aid, or nothing.

Yes dear, but they also don't seem to be running around trying to please everyone by telling ....by making promises they may not keep later either.

As the Democratic Party did in 2004, DNC Chairman Howard Dean tried at one point to intervene in the process, brokering the deal that resulted in six debates this fall (the same number held in the last election cycle). Yet there is nothing to stop the candidates from signing up with every special interest group that makes an offer, and the lesser-known candidates, such as Kucinich and Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), often do, forcing the front-runners' hands

Edwards, frustrated by the time restrictions forced on the candidates when so many are on the stage, has offered to participate in a smaller, three-person event with Clinton and Kucinich, if the other candidates will accept similar events.

It seems like everyone wants to have time to talk but ya'll don't have enough time for anyone to say anything.

Yeah, and Hilly, Johnny, ...

Yes Dear, you said that before, they want to be the only ones talking.

"Senator Edwards feels strongly that voters deserve more substantive debates between the candidates," Eric Schultz, a campaign spokesman, said yesterday. "One way to do that would be to break up the field into smaller groups for real debates. You cannot explain how you will end the war in Iraq or solve the climate crisis in 60 seconds."

Yeah, and Johnny only wants to make bumper stickers ... and when we laughed at him, he changed his mind saying he wants to talk now, but only in small groups. I think he feels afraid that Hilly, and Obama are going to beat him up ... or that Dennis will make him start doing yoga or something.

Well honey, when you and your friends are a bit more grown up. I think you will find that anything you really want in life is not always easy to get. Nor is it just given to you. Most of the time you have to work for it. That means you don't complain (or give the impression you're complaining) when you have to talk to the public about issues which are important to them.

Perhaps that is why politics and government should be left to the adults. Obviously the "Democrat Kids" are finding it to be a little more then they can handle.

Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself

... "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself---nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance" ...

Source: Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address

Fear itself ... that which causes ones blood to run cold, the sting of bile to rise in the throat, the primal instinct of flight or fight comes to the fore. All human beings experience some form of fear in their lives. Some fortunate few are lucky to have only memories of the monsters under the bed or in the closet, as the only time they can recall tasting fears bitter tincture. The rest of us ... well ... we have had to deal with worse. Some dealt (or are dealing with) far worse.

Fear can be dealt with and if not outright conquered, at least have it's root sources identified, and work done to eliminate or marginalize these sources. A reasoning human being will attempt to bring about this kind of change in their lives. These good people are not whom are being addressed in this bit of puditry.

The world is an ocean of peoples, places, countries, cultures. A mixture, of rich and poor, have and have not, pious and profane, good and evil. Most are able to live within what is considered normal standards of acceptable behavior. Or, at the very least, are what is accepted as a non-threatening, eccentric lifestyle. Interaction between these folks, for the most part, will not inspire fear. Indeed, in "a perfect world" ™ , all of humanity would be able to peacefully co-exist. There would be no crime, no rapes, no murder, no war ... no reason at all to fear your fellow human beings.

But we live in an imperfect world. Mankind is imperfect. And, as so abily stated here,
by Mr. Bill Whittle, (and a philosophy I hold to as well) people are either sheep, wolves, or sheepdogs. And much like Bill, (and many others) I find the most realistic group for me is, sheepdog. This is not to say I, or many others, do not (or would not) feel fear in any given event. We are human, there may be that feeling in the gut given a life threatening situation ... but, how we choose (yes, it is a choice) react to it makes all the difference.

And this is where the real dividing line is in our country. Not, that there isn't those who profess to be conservative or on the right politically, are immune to fear. Rather they (and there are exceptions but thankfully few) know how to properly REACT to it.

The inverse to this is true for those on the other side of the spectrum as well. (Again, there are exceptions there as well.) They are also not immune to fear. But their reaction(s) are of an entirely different kind:

1. Ignore it, and it will (eventually) go away. The threat "isn't really there , or applicable to US. Ergo, it doesn't exist. Or isn't really important, so we shouldn't waste our collective time energy or money on it.

2. Try and understand it. Not in the sense of trying to effectively combat same, rather, "in understanding our enemy we can then deal with their aggressiveness, and find a peaceful solution." This would work assuming your enemy was willing to accept your theory, and your enemy was willing to abide with the "solution" you came up with. Most clear thinking folks have one word which describes this ...Appeasement. We also have found throughout history, this doesn't work for anyone other then the aggressor.

3. Just try and get along. A slight variant of number two. It is equally ineffective. Though the aggressor may go along with this as long as they keep getting what they want. Appeasement again comes to mind along with blackmale/extortion.

4. We don't feel like our views/ideas/goals are being accepted In other words the causes, believes, ideals considered important are not getting the respect (read value/weight) that the sponsors of same feel they should be gettign. Stated another way; "I am afraid of being/becoming irrelevant, or inconsequential. Or I will be losing any power and or prestige my view(s) may have given me in the past. And I want that power back"

5. It's not fair. Fear of being left out, marginalized. Akin to number 4 above.

These are just five basic breakdowns of the fear which rules those on the left. There are sub-species, and I know I have failed to list some (chalk it up to the first stages of senility).

What is important to note here are two things. The first is all of the above are feeling/emotionally based responses to fear. They are all flight reactions.

The second is all of the above and their resulting manifestations (Marxism, Socialism, Appeasement, Diversity, Political Correctness ... the list goes EVER on and on ...) have been resounding failures! And if implemented to any recognizable degree within our society/civilization, will sound the death knoll for same.

And this my friends would be one of my greatest fears. That we allow this to happen. Further more, do we have enough adults left in this country who would have the courage to stand up and be counted on to do what may be needed when (the "if" has long sense passed) the time comes.

... But I support the troops

The recent flap about Ted Rall's POS cartoon, along with the constant moaning from those on the left that, dispite all their actions to the contrary, they do support the troops, has brought me very close to the point where I need to find a progressive/liberal/statist and show them how I "support the troops", by wringing their bloody necks.

Calming down a bit, and for some odd reason, feeling charitable towards those whose grasp of logic, common sense, and or civility (if nothing else), is sorely lacking, caused me to come up with the following.

In an effort to make it easier for those without a clue as to what they may really be. Just read the following and see where your actions place you.

BIG HINTS: There is no pass or fail. There are no extra points for gender, race, religion, or cultural background. There is no gray area, “you are what you are” and that is it. If you are uncomfortable with what the following shows about you, then look inside you and change. OR, kindly leave this country as soon as possible, because the rest of US are getting real tired, fed up, and royally pissed off at ya'll (along with your actions, thoughts, and deeds).

You claim to “support the troops” (but not the war/mission).
Yet, at every opportunity you:

1.Cut back on their funding, or monies to be used to buy/produce/develop weapons/equipment for them to effectively do what ever they are tasked to do.

2.Make disparaging comments or innuendo about the intelligence of the troops (especially the enlisted side of the house).

3.Make disparaging comments about current missions/battles/wars where our troops are actively participating. (It is bad enough if you did this in private. That may or may not be considered in poor taste, depending on the social groups you travel with. And your private words are your own, as long as they are not voiced in public,then all bets are off.)

4.Produce/Report/Edit/Release incomplete, inaccurate, or completely fabricated information as news/commentary about military forces/operations and their over all (or, more correctly, to fit your agenda) “lack of success”.

5.Actively support groups, either by providing funds for same, promoting these organizations, or giving credence to “mouthpieces” who seek to spread their own propaganda, which in turn makes it harder for our troops to do their job in the field.

6.Allow all the above (and more) to have their say in your public form (be it print or audio/visual media outlets/stations) under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”, regardless of the accuracy of said information and or spokesperson.

Before we go any further, let's step over here a sec and take a look at a couple of definitions.

Main Entry: trai·tor Pronunciation: 'trA-t&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give -- more at DATE 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

Source: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Source: Wikipedia-Treason

Note: I was going to add Sedition (which in and of itself is no longer applicable in the US), or perhaps parts of US code 18, but that doesn't really fit the argument presented here today .Unless you are one of the leakers of classified information (to the press and others), but you are already in dutch because of the SF-312 you signed. And that, in itself, may be enough to put your big yaps behind steel bars.

Ok, we have our six categories, and applicable definitions. So to see where you fit in just follow the three simple steps below the fold