In response to a news article about how it costs cell phone companies very little to deliver text messages, making it a highly profitable part of their business, given the rampant texting by young people, this MacWorld forum was filled with the kind of comments that are typical of society these days and are a glimpse into the kind of liberal/socialist mindset that has me greatly worried. It was too much for me to ignore, so I responded:

Reading some of these posts has me weeping for the future of mankind. What a bunch of ignorant, childish, whiners.

Here's a little secret: nobody in business, whether a sole proprietor or a multi-national corporation, prices their products according to the cost of of producing them, if they know what they are doing. Cost is irrelevant to pricing. Pricing is a function of supply and demand. Period. Sometimes, market conditions are such that you have to sell your products at a loss. Sometimes, you can make a bundle. That's the way it goes.

If I find an Babe Ruth baseball card in the attic, my cost is zero. I am obligated to just give it away for zero or little money? I hope to God you are saying to yourself, "No." Regardless of the cost, I am entitled to get what the market will bear. The fact that handling text messages has little variable cost (don't forget though, that there are huge fixed costs of running a cell phone company) is totally irrelevant to the pricing.

There is nothing wrong, much less criminal, with charging what the market will bear. Profit is not dirty. Profit is what all (sane) businesses strive for. Yes, they can strive for other goals too, but without profit, they cease to exist. There is no such thing as "excess profit," unless there you have a true monopoly situation involving product that people cannot reasonably live without. There is plenty of competition in the cell phone market.

Bottom line: if you think it costs too much to text, switch companies. If you can't find a better deal, don't text. It is that simple. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Stop looking for some company to blame or some politician to solve your problems.

Anger at cell phone companies? Government investigations? Talk about "obscene profits"? The self-centered, wimpy, business-ignorant nanny-state has truly arrived.

Rant over.

In Prediction, Part 1, I forecast the election results. I was reasonably close the mark, but it was an easy prediction.

Before I take on the more difficult job of predicting how the Most Holy Obama's administration will play out, I'll make another easy one. In thoroughly liberal Minnesota, enough votes will be manufactured, discovered, or found in the back seats of cars to steal the senatorial election away from Norm Coleman and give it to Al Franken. So far as I am aware, votes "discovered" in one way or another have favored (surprise!) Al Franken in every single instance. Hmmm, what are the odds of that happening by chance...

I won't get into all the sordid details here (Power Line is doing a good job of reporting it all), but there is little question that fraud is occurring. Coleman's lead has shrunk from 705 votes down to 206, and the recount hasn't even started yet. I will gladly, and hopefully, eat my words, but Coleman doesn't stand a chance against corrupt liberal vote counters. And when it occurs, I don't want to hear another peep from Democrats about Bush supposedly stealing the 2000 election.

Now, regarding Obama the Arrogant, immediately after the election I felt there was a fair chance that the guy would actually do what he said over and over on the campaign trail: be a uniter, lead in a new direction, usher in real "change," whatever that means. In the subsequent days, those hopes are disappearing. Why?

1. He has already appointed Clinton-era folks to his staff, including the hyper-partisan Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. Democrat Paul Begala reportedly described him as a "cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache." This is a uniter? This is post-partisan? This is a new direction?

2. He held a press conference in which he mocked the elderly Nancy Reagan as having held seances in the White House. Classy. Speaks volumes.

3. He contradicts Polish President Lech Kaczynski regarding whether or not, during their conversation, Obama agreed to continue the missle defense project. This is clarity in foreign policy? Or is did he say one thing to Kaczynski and another to the U.S. press?

4. He claimed that he would not meet with Hamas until they renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist. He lied. Senior Hamas officials announced that they have already talked and met with Obama's people, but were told not to reveal that information until after the election. This is change? This is an honest approach?

5. The co-chair of Obama's transition team said the King would be "ready to rule on Day 1." Rule, huh? Obama the Arrogant, indeed.

6. All this has happened in less than a week after the election.

I believe Obama's campaign was nothing but a show designed to fool the electorate by telling them what they wanted to hear. When you consider his association with unrepentant terrorists like William Ayers, radical America haters like Rev. Wright, and Socialist political parties, it's easy to be alarmed at the prospect of the show stopping and the "ruling" beginning.

So, what will his administration be like?

First, I predict he will continue to fill positions with long-time liberals and staunch Democrats. So much for "change."

Second, he will successfully push through his tax increase/wealth redistribution plan, over the outcries of Republicans. So much for being a unifer and bringing people together.

Third, in spite his plan and not because of it, the economy will strengthen. The media loves to talk about what monumental challenges will face Obama and how tough it will be. They're doing this to lower expectations and to make sure he gets the credit for anything good that happens. In reality, Obama couldn't possibly be more fortunate, and he must be absolutely delighted. Here's why:

1. The credit crisis is slowing fading away. The heavy lifting (for good or bad) has been done. The gears of finance are moving again.

2. Oil prices and other commodity prices have tumbled. Remember how Bush was blamed for high gas prices? Funny how he's not getting the credit now that they have returned to earth. The reality, of course, is that Bush has little to do with the price of oil, although he did help matters when he rescinded the ban on off-shore drilling. The price of oil has always been largely about global demand.

3. The inventory of home listings has dropped substantially as the housing market is poised to rebound. It's just waiting on the rest of the economy now.

4. Iraq is won and is now largely a policing and transition situation. Obama will get to bring the troops home, and he will get the credit for ending the war. Bush won't get the credit for winning it.

5. The dollar is much stronger than it used to be.

6. Inflation is in check.

7. Interest rates are low.

8. By the time he takes office, the worst of the job losses will probably be over, or nearly so.

9. These factors taken together mean that the economy is poised to take off, and will start doing so mid-way through 2009. And Obama will get the credit.

My fourth prediction is that he'll get a solid year of honeymoon, and then the press will take off their bridal gowns and realize that, wow, he really is arrogant. He really does say one thing to one group and something else to another. His actions don't always match his words. He really is a lefty, and not a centrist. He really is a human being and not a god.

Don't get me wrong, they'll still love the guy. After all, he is a lefty like they are, but they will start to sober up and, for the first time, he will have to deal with tough questions from the press.

Fifth, the Republicans will rediscover their conservative roots and Ronald Reagan. They will rally and provide meaningful opposition.

Sixth, for those Americans in the political middle that voted for Obama, the bloom will come off the rose around 2010-2011. It will sink in that he is a typical lefty politician and his approval rating will fall below 50%.

Seventh, the midterm elections in 2010 will see modest Republican gains in the House and Senate. Modest because unless Obama screws up completely, the economy will be fairly strong.

Eighth, Joe Biden will continue to be a gaffe machine, and the press will stop covering for him once the late-night comedians start carving him up.

Ninth, I sincerely hope I am wrong about this, but I think Bush's incredibly strong streak of 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on U.S. soil will come to an end. Obama will respond with a lot of words and condemnations, but treat it as a police action, and the terrorists will be emboldened.

Tenth, Iran will attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, unless Israel preemptively attacks Iranian facilities. Either way, Obama will respond will a lot of words and condemnations, but little else.

Eleventh, by the time the election in 2012 rolls around, Obama's tax hikes and increases in regulations (carbon taxes, etc.) will start to affect the economy. There will have been some kind of scandal or corruption. Americans will be concerned about radical Islam and terrorism again. The bloom will be off the Obama rose.

The country will be tired of liberalism by 2012, just as they were tired of the feckless Jimmy Carter. The country will be tired of buffoons like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They will ready to undo the mistake of 2008.

The Republicans, having learned a lesson about what qualities it takes in win a presidential election these days, will find a youthful, attractive, energetic, smooth-talking candidate that can articulate what conservatism is all about. If they don't, if they turned to some old GOP fixture, they'll lose. But if they can find an appealing candidate, they'll win.

Finally, let me say that none the predications represents my wishes (other than GOP gains). I sincerely hope that Obama proves to be a uniter and a centrist. I want America to prosper and enjoy safety and freedom, no matter who gets the credit. If he leads effectively and America benefits, I'll be delighted and admit I was wrong.

We'll see.

Ever since the primary season, when it became clear that Obama and McCain would be the nominees, I've had this uneasy feeling that I haven't been able to put my finger on. Then, when the tide was flowing in B.O.' s direction and his win became inevitable, that nebulous feeling grew. With the Messiah's ascension victory, the feeling became one of slight nausea, but what was it?

It wasn't the mere fact that the Democrat won. That doesn't bother me (much). It was some kind of sensation that the country was on the wrong course, regardless of who won. Today, Mark Steyn on National Review nailed it for me with The Death of the American Idea. The title sums it up well. Countries around the world are drifting to the left, including the U.S. Here's a statistic that gets more depressing as each year passes and it grows larger and larger:

"...federal spending (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) has gone from $600 billion in 1965 to $3 trillion today."

That's right, government is five times bigger today than 1965, at least in terms of spending. Can you imagine how horrified our founding fathers would be at the size and scope of the federal government?

The monstrosity that is our government has changed the mentality of many Americans. A majority of people now feel entitled to pay little or no income taxes, placing an ever-increasing burden on those who are particularly productive, yet the same free-loaders expect to be provided for and coddled from cradle to grave. The government paying for daycare, schooling, welfare, prescription drugs, healthcare? Yes, we can! The mentality extends to the rest of the economy as well. Bailing out insurance companies, banks, and auto companies? Government intervention, regulation, and even ownership of so-called private industry? Sure!

Mr. Steyn's money quote:

The President-elect's so-called “tax cut” will absolve 48 per cent of Americans from paying any federal income tax at all, while those that are left will pay more. Just under half the population will be, as Daniel Henninger pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, on the dole. By 2012, it will be more than half, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism, and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the nanny state. That is the death of the American idea — which, after all, began as an economic argument: “No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry. “No representation without taxation” has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable and you've got to give some of it back?

The left loves to talk (and talk...) about "sustainability." The increasingly liberal nature of our government is unsustainable and should be an affront to all Americans. It seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

The day after B.O. was elected, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 5%. That's 5% in one day.

So much for the idea that Wall Street is excited about the Messiah's economic policies. It's finally dawning on everybody that he wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, which immediate decreases the stock values.

I'm glad I'm in commercial real estate.

Not much to say about the election results that I haven't already said, but Powerline, as usual, has a nice summary of the outcome and what it mean. While they don't believe the results should be termed a landslide since the margin was 5 to 6 points, it was certainly a solid victory.

Locally, there were some important Republican victories, so Obama's coattails weren't particularly long. In fact, most of my choices won, which is satisfying.

The thought that keeps going through my head is that the country had to endure Jimmy Carter and come to grips with its mistake in electing him, to then correct that mistake by electing Ronald Reagan. If Obama's presidency results in the public realizing how awful liberalism is, and the next Ronald Reagan is elected in 2012... well, I'll take that tradeoff every time.

Today is election day (finally!) and it's time for predictions. My first prediction (today) will be the election outcome, and the second prediction (soonish) will be what the next president's term will be like.

Back around the 2000 election, I discovered Rasmussen Reports, a polling firm. They have proven themselves to be among the most accurate and serious of the polling companies, with no discernible bias. I tend to discard the noise of the latest NYT/CBS/Whatever poll and just pay attention to Rasmussen.

The popular vote is irrelevant. The only tally that matters is the electoral college, and here's the bottom line: Obama leads 260 to 160, with 118 toss-ups and leaners. It's easy to see that McCain would have to win almost all of the toss-ups to pull off a win. Baring a enormous turnout by Republicans, the Messiah will easily reach the magic 270 needed to win and descend from heaven to show us His Way. I never thought I'd see so many people turn off their brains and follow such a leftist.

So, will Republicans turn out en masse? I can't see it. Sure, conservatives are scared of an Obama presidency and what it might mean for our country, but there isn't a great deal of enthusiasm for McCain. He's a bona fide hero, but he is a mixed-bag politically. I don't think Republicans will be voting for McCain as much as they'll be voting against Obama. That's no way to win an election. Still, I want to thank John McCain for his extensive service to the country he so dearly loves.

I predict Obama takes it by a minimum of 310 to 228. It will be termed a "landslide," and it'll be hard to argue.

When Obama wins, it will confirm once and for all that experience is irrelevant, ideas are irrelevant, military heroism is irrelevant, honesty is irrelevant, consistency is irrelevant. What matters is: youth, slick speaking, physical attractiveness, gobs of money, a willingness to tell people whatever they want to hear, and perhaps most importantly, a press corp that is willing to cover for the candidate when he flip-flops, associates with terrorists, America-haters, and Islamic radicals, and pretends to have mainstream views.

OK, next time, I'll predict what Obama's administration will be like. Here's a hint: he'll serve only one term.

I added a few more Mark Twain quotes to my Favorite Quotes section. You know the old cocktail party question, "If you could have dinner with someone from history, who would you choose?"? I'm certainly not a Mark Twain expert, but just based on Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, and his wonderful quotes, he'd be on my short list.

I've decided to run the Sarasota Half-Marathon in February, a 13.1-mile race. I've never run that kind of distance before, and I have had doubts that my knees and back would be able to handle it. On Sunday, I took a big step in the right direction by running further than I ever have: 9 miles. I'm pleased.

I love this cartoon.
Speaking of media bias, I wonder if, at the end of 2008, the media will report that it was one of the coldest years we've had recently (yes, I am making a prediction here). Nah, if I'm right, they will bury the story. It would put another nail in the man-made global warming coffin. 2008 will mark the 10th year in a row that has been cooler than 1998. Does that sound like a crisis to you? Does that sound like a situation that demands an upheaval of capitalistic economies or burdensome, ridiculous schemes like "cap and trade"?

Drudge linked to an article in the New York Observer about some feminist named Erica Jong. I was interested due to the title:
"Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets'"

I, too, believe there will be violence by the deranged left if The One is not elected. I have already pointed out examples of Liberal Rage Syndrome, and there are more. But what does it tell you about the left that they are willing to turn to violence if they can't get their way at the voting booth?

Regardless, I am here to tell you that there won't be any "second Civil War". First, it would make a complete mockery of all those "war is not the answer" bumper stickers. But more importantly, there is the question of armament. What are the libs going to attack with? Hot lattes? Are they going to figure out how to convert a Prius to a tank? Can you imagine your average vegetarian teachers union member going up against a shotgun and buck knife equipped conservative from Texas or Tennessee? That "war" would be over before it began.

What I love most about the article are the quotes from Ms. Jong:

"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."
What record? And has she heard of ACORN? Or is she talking about Daley's Chicago? Who knows!

"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."
I hate to hear Follett is a lib, but hearing that Jane Fonda is a bundle of nerves brings me a bit of twisted pleasure.

"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."
So liberals are so weak minded that the mere possibility that The One-Whose-Middle-Name-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned might not win the election is causing back problems? Get a grip!

"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"
Ahh, yes, the tin-foil hat is firmly in place now.

"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."
Can you believe this? Libs were demanding that troops come home from Iraq. Because we've won, some troops have been brought home,. But wait, the real reason was to prepare for an inevitable civil war! That boggles the mind. And this woman is considered an intellectual in the liberal community? Yikes.

"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."
I absolutely love this. Remind me again, which campaign just kicked reporters off the campaign plane since they work for newspapers that had the temerity to endorse McCain? And is she referring to the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 99-1? That evil Bush! He must have rigged the Senate voting machine!

Very amusing stuff. I have to thank Ms. Jong for making my Friday.

Although the polls are tightening a little, one has to assume that the combination of these factors will ensure Obama's election:

• The Messiah's massive war chest, permitted by his broken promise to accept public campaign financing and comprised partly of illegal foreign donations (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!)

• The credit crunch and the associated dive in the stock market, due in large part to the Dems mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the pressure exerted on banks by Barack's ACORN to make high-risk loans (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!)

• The media lap dogs who, at the beginning of this election cycle, finally gave up trying to hide their biased reporting and switched to outright advocacy (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!).

• The amazing ability of The One, who was rated the most liberal member of the Senate, to hide his liberalism as he lurches to the center (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!).

• The lack of enthusiasm conservatives and moderates feel for John McCain. Yes, he is a war hero. Yes, he is great on defense and spending. Yet he is terrible on other issues like campaign finance reform, drilling in the Alaska wasteland, the treatment of terrorists, and climate change. He has a long history of poking conservatives in the eye and, in combination with his innate lack of charisma, he has left the Republican Party unenthusiastic about him. What enthusiasm we do have is strictly due to our fear of the alternative.

I hate doom and gloom. I hate end-of-the-world statements. I hate unwarranted hand-wringing. But I have to wonder if the election of Barack Obama will be the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it. I don't mean that the U.S. won't survive, but it might be in a form unrecognizable to our founding fathers.

I'm afraid we will see the Democrats move us toward their beloved socialism and Marxism.

I'm afraid the press, emboldened by the realization that they still trump the alternative press and having invested everything into The Messiah, will continue their worshipful ways and will continue to avert their eyes at his transgressions.

I'm afraid for freedom of speech since the "Fairness" Doctrine is lurking the in wings, and the Dems have already shown us they are more than willing to shut down the speech of those with whom they disagree.

I'm afraid that we will have reached a tipping point in our tax code, where majority will not pay income taxes and will realize they can make the productive minority pay the tab.

I'm afraid for our strong ally Israel and its fate, if a feckless Obama doesn't support them and stop Iran from developing a nuke.

I'm afraid our Supreme Court will be stacked with law makers instead of Constitution interpreters.

I'm afraid chimeras like global warming will stifle business and productivity with insane regulations.

I'm afraid corruption will go unchecked.

I'm afraid terrorists will be emboldened and will attack us on our own soil.

I'm afraid government will get so large that it cannot ever realistically be changed and that the nanny state will be with us forever.

I'm afraid the people of Iraq won't get the support they need, and our victory there will turn into defeat.

I hope and pray that my fears are unwarranted. I hope and pray that should my fears be proven justified, the nations will wake up, and a wave of conservatism will sweep over the mid-term elections, as it did during the Clinton administration.

All that said, my happiness isn't a function of which party or person is in the White House. Some people "own" the election internally, and will be extremely upset if the results don't go their way. I used to be that way. I'm wiser now. Yes, I'll be disappointed in the judgement of that portion of the electorate that voted for Obama, but life goes on regardless.

I ran in the 20th Annual Bill's Beer Run on Sunday, and it was great fun. There were about 700 people there (from what I heard), and a few folks were dressed, and ran in, Halloween garb. There was a Grim Reaper with an enormous head (he had to look out the mouth hole). Some friends of mine ran as Batman and Batwoman, capes and all. There was even one of those long Chinese dragons held up on poles by three runners.

The race was an out-and-back 5-mile course on beautiful Casey Key. Naturally, I was still running the out leg when the leader passed by on return leg. Wow. He was absolutely flying. I can't wait until the results are posted on the Manasota Track Club site to see what his time was.

I was pleased with my own result: 42:26 -- timed by my own watch to eliminate the agonizing interval between the horn starting the race and the moment when you actually cross the starting line, due to the crowd. That works out to be an 8:29/mile pace, and it's the best race result I have had. Everything came together: good training program, smart taper, avoiding alcohol for the prior few days, and nice, cool weather in the mid-60's. It is amazing how large of a difference the temperature makes to running performance. I realize that finishing 200th overall leaves a lot of room for improvement, but hey, it's not bad for a 43-year old who has been running for less than a year.

Still, I think I could have run it a little faster. While I was running negative splits like I planned (slowly increasing my speed throughout the race), I left a little on the table. I was a little hesitant to believe how good I was feeling and held back a touch. In addition, I should have started my kick around the 1 mile mark instead of the 0.5 mark. At the end, I had more left in my tank than I should have. Finally, I should have skipped the water at mile 3 -- I ended up slightly gagging as it went down the wrong pipe. Hmm, I guess that takes a little practice.

Of course, true to the event's name, there was beer served after the race. It's funny how the beer tasted so much better than Gatorade or water.

This story of a female McCain supporter being mugged, and then maimed with the letter 'B' (for Barack) scratched into her face is certainly a prime example of LRS... if it's true. The picture of her face is very disturbing -- the 'B' is clearly visible and she has a black eye.

While her story does have some inconsistencies, as far as I can tell they have little to do with the meat of the story and more to do with her fuzzy recollection of the some of the details. Who could blame her for not recalling horrific events perfectly clearly? To her credit, she has taken a lie detector test.

Unless information to the contrary comes forth, I am going to count this as another example of Liberal Rage Syndrome.

Update: Nope, she apparently made it up. Did she maim her own face? If so, get this woman some help...

Wow, that was quick. I just wrote bit about Liberal Rage Syndrome and, voila, here's another example of it:

Republican HQ Manager's Home Shot Up Over McCain Signs

Excerpting:

The home of a Central Florida Republican headquarters manager was shot up and damaged over his support of Sen. John McCain, the man told police...

Coverely said he has taken about 300 calls concerning stolen or vandalized McCain signs in the area. "It says this campaign is getting vicious," Coverely said. Coverely said it appears Democrats are becoming more aggressive in the county.

"I wouldn't say slipping but I would say the Democrats have become far more aggressive in Seminole County because it is such a heavy Republican area," Coverely said.

Hmmm, now bullets are flying. It that the "change" liberals are looking for?

For years, conservatives have noted a phenomenon they've called "Bush Derangement Syndrome." There are a wide variety of symptoms for the disease, but they include an irrational hatred of President Bush, illogical thinking, blaming any and all problems, whether domestic or foreign, on him, and using words like "Bushitler". BDS comes from a lack of clear cognitive functioning in combination with the frustration of losing the last two elections and the subconscious realization that most of the country just doesn't care for liberalism.

I am seeing signs that BDS has morphed into a more generalized hatred that includes violence. I've never liked the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" since it isn't Bush who is deranged, but those on the loonie left. So, I'll call this new variation "Liberal Rage Syndrome."

What is LRS and how do I know it exists? Not only have I read about instances of it, I have witnessed it twice recently. The first instance occurred a few weeks ago at the LSU-Florida football game pre-game festivities on University Avenue in Gainesville. There were thousands of people tailgating and walking about, all having a great time, Tiger fans included. There was a small McCain-Palin tent set up nearby and my wife impulsively grabbed a couple of name-tag-sized McCain-Palin stickers, put one on the side of her dress, and gave one to me. I stuck it on my shirt. Not 10 minutes later, a guy walking the other direction lunged over toward my wife, jabbed his finger at her and screamed "F*** McCain!" Both of us were so stunned that by the time we recovered the guy had disappeared into the crowd. OK, it wasn't a huge incident, but it fits a pattern, as you will see next.

Last Saturday morning, I got up early to go for my long run downtown. I was driving along at about 6:50 AM, and stopped at a red light next to the only other car on the six-lane street, a car with numerious liberal stickers on the back. You can probably guess what kind of car it was. I thought nothing of it, and when the light turned green, I accelerated normally and the other car fell behind slightly.

Then, all of a sudden, the car speeds ahead, swerves in front of me, and hits the brakes -- not enough for me to lock up my brakes, but close. I immediately swerve to the empty lane and the car swerves back in front of me to keep me behind him. I blow my horn at him, and then it hits me -- this nutcase is trying to get me to see his bumper stickers, including his Obama sticker, and he is enraged because I have the temerity to have a McCain-Palin sticker on the back of my car.

At this point, the adrenalin is pumping because I don't know if he is really trying to get me to crash into him. My instinct told me to gun it and get past him. It probably wasn't the safest move, but it worked. After all, I was in a 300 hp CTS and he was driving a lame (you guessed it) Prius. I blow past the psycho, and thankfully he decided to turn off onto a side street. I eventually calmed down and had a really nice long run.

Today on Drudge, I see this story: Owner Believes Lexus Vandalized Due to McCain Sticker. Read it and be shocked.

"Someone etched obscenities and "KKK" into the paint, burned several areas of the car with cigarettes, set the flag on fire on his hood and may have urinated on the vehicle. Officers and the owner think the car was singled out because of its political stickers, including one reading "Nobama."

"This is definitely a hate crime," said the Armstrong (the owner), a 41-year-old physician.

Police estimated damage at $4,500. Police classified the incident as "criminal mischief/hate crime" and said it appeared "to be politically/racially motivated because the victim affixed a bumper sticker supporting the McCain campaign as well as an anti-Obama bumper sticker."

As bad as that incident is, and as much as it is another example of LRS, it is only doubled or trebled when one reads some of comments left by readers of the news story.

They range from complete stupidity ("So the KKK vandalized the car...and left their calling card..")...

...to stunning denial ("It's McCain's political machine trying to make Obama look bad.")...

...to blaming Republicans (!) ("Probably the car was vandalized at Palin's HATE rally. LOL Really they most likely reaping what they sowed.")...

...to glee and a suggestion to cower ("I love happy stories. May I suggest an Obama sticker next time.")...

...to a hope for more violence ("I can only pray that Frank-the-Lexus owner has a McCain-Plain yard sign.")...

...to the non-sensical ("Such a sad story. Sorry to hear his Rebel flag probably a family heirloom was destroyed. Sorry to hear that Republicans cannot get credit and must destroy their own cars to get a new one. I know how those KKK member like to remain hooded and not outed like this.")

I could go on and on with more examples. An anchorwoman was beaten and stabbed, possibly because she played a conservative in the "W" movie. We'll see, if and when she recovers. For more about intimidation tactics, see my previous post on Obama's Thugocracy.

Look, I realize that elections bring out intense emotions in people. I realize there have been violent incidents in previous election cycles, by perpetrators from both parties, although the vast majority seems to come from the peace-loving left. But I firmly believe we are seeing the syndrome reach a new level. It is infecting a greater number of people. It is almost impossible to have a civilized discussion with hard-core Obama supporters. They are so emotion-based and have so little regard for reason that the conversation ends almost as soon as it begins. They don't even know what he stands for, other than "change." They just know the He is The One.

It's no wonder that people who are so ill-equipped to conduct a calm, logical discourse turn to violence and hatred so easily. They have no other tools in their toolbox. They're empty. They're exposed. They have an internal dissonance (thinking of themselves as a member of the peace and love party, yet intensely hating conservatives) and rage that they can't resolve.

It's likely Obama will win the election, and we will be on our way toward socialism, higher taxes, and a stifling of free speech (the "Fairness Doctrine"). Hopefully, I am wrong, and he will turn out to be a centrist. Hopefully.

But imagine if McCain wins... I predict LRS will go into full bloom, and we'll see violence. Shocking violence. Violence that the Obamedia won't be able to ignore. Hopefully, I am wrong there too, but I doubt it.

Assuming the Chosen One does actually go on to become president, here's what we can look forward to: The Coming Liberal Thugocracy, by Michael Barone.

Barone is as cool-headed, even-handed, and respected in anyone in politics. So when I man of his stature observes anti-free speech behavior of Obama and his supporters, which is so very typical of the hard leftists these days, and when he predicts more of the same under an Obama priesthood administration, it should be a wake-up call to all sane Americans.

Also sounding the klaxon is Paul Mirongoff with his Guilty by Participation: Barack Obama’s radical associations and what they mean. Can you imagine if George W. Bush had the kind of associations that Obama has when Bush was running for president? OK, neither can I, since Bush is just not that kind of person. But if he had those kinds of "friends," my God, we would have been hearing about nothing else in the press. But because Barry is The One, the mainstream media is (nearly) silent.

We've been warned.

Rays win! Rays win!
Another giant hurdle crossed as the Rays make it to the American League Championship Series against the Red Sox. They used to be intimidated by Boston and by the Yankees, but no longer. Still, it should be a very close series. I predict the Rays will take it 4-3.

It is bitter irony that Obama will probably end up being elected Messiah President of the United States due, in part, to his support of the corrupt ACORN organization, ACORN's and Obama's intimidation of banks to make high-risk loans, the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Democrat Harold Raines, and the Dems' (especially Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's) success in blocking Republican efforts to reign in those organizations a few years ago -- all of which helped created the mess in the financial markets, which a large, ignorant portion of the electorate blames on... wait for it... Republicans. Having the mainstream media totally and completely in your pocket sure has it benefits.

Speaking of the economy, while the market is alarmingly volatile these days, there are three strong developments: oil prices, which had been the cause of so much angst, have plunged to well under $100; the dollar has strengthed dramatically; and real estate inventories, at least in the Sarasota area, have plunged, a sign of increasing residential recovery. But if good news trees fall in a forest and there is no one there to hear them, do they still make a sound?

Disjointed thoughts...

How about those Rays? Winners of Game 1. My wife and I are going with some friends to Game 2 tonight. Can't wait!

Had to take a break from running due to a bad sinus infection. I felt so weak, particularly in my legs, that I felt as though I was a new runner again. Glad to report that the weakness is gone, and I'm about 90% back to where I was. My next race is Bill's Beer Run on October 26 (5 miles).

Did anybody see this AP story? Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq... Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada. Yet more evidence that Saddam was up to no good, and that getting rid of him was wise.

And here's more evidence of what I consider to be the #1 problem facing the United States: news bias. The liberal press have abandoned any pretext of impartiality. It's all out war now, and Republicans better learn how to fight back. (As always, I could provide a several bias stories like that every day without any problem. I just don't have the time.)

I wish every politician on the planet was like Sarah Palin. I'm not talking about her political views, which I largely agree with, I am talking about genuineness and her real-ness and her natural charisma. There is nothing fake about her. I can't recall anybody in politics today who better represents the anti-politician. If politics-as-usual is an illness (and it certainly makes me sick), Sarah Palin is the cure. Here's what former Sen. Fred Thompson had to say about her and her strong debate with Sen. Biden. He nails it:

“One of the reasons I feel so good for her, just as a human being is I have never seen anybody undergo the ridicule, the slanders and the lies, and the blogosphere and what they’re doing, and breaking into her private e-mail, rumors and things about her, and now, most recently, belittling her, taking little snippets of interviews and laughing at her and satirizing her. Those people ought to be ashamed of themselves, if they’re capable of shame, because they’ve proven that what they were doing does not represent who she was and who she is. Thank goodness, just as she said, that this was an unfiltered event for an hour and a half. She could stand toe-to-toe with Joe Biden, who’s been around for all these many, many years, and basically take him to the woodshed.”

I bought a used sailboat! It's a 1986 Spindrift 22. It needs work, and I have a lot of learning to do, but I love it. Now if my family and I could just find the time to use it! Soon. Very soon.

Who or what is responsible for the current mess in the housing and financial markets? Until recently, I figured there were three culprits.

First, I think Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long, encouraging people to take on greater debt than they should have. The low interest rates also contributed to the decline of the dollar and the rise of oil prices.

Second, many individuals got caught up in the fervor over seemingly ever-increasing housing values and tried to get in on the game without knowing what they were doing or properly assessing the financial risks they were taking. Real estate investing takes careful planning since it is illiquid, as overextended investors eventually and sadly realized.

Third, many banks, although not all, joined the game (kudos to my favorite bank, Northern Trust, for staying out of it) and made many loans that were not properly scrutinized. They weren't conservative enough.

However, as I learn more about the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their emphasis on buying risky loans from banks, I am convinced that they played perhaps the most important role in the whole affair. They were the principle enablers, so to speak. Ironically, Alan Greenspan and some Republicans in Congress recognized the danger back in 2005 after Frankllin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director was fired as head of Fannie Mae due to shoddy accounting practices. Republicans proposed legislation that would have reigned in Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats voted it down, and the rest is history.

This Fox News clip clearly explains it all:

As I have acknowledged many times, President Bush has made many mistakes during his two terms, although he has also made plenty of correct decisions. However, when he was first elected, he never imagined that he would be a war-time president, yet the liberation of Iraq and the fight against terrorism will surely be the hallmarks of his administration.

I have always believe that, despite the mistakes he, his administration, and the military made in the the middle part of the Iraq war, if the liberation proves successful and a terrorism-fighting democracy is established in place of Saddam's evil dictatorship (and that outcome certainly looks likely), history will, in the long run, look very favorably on George W. Bush. The United States and the peaceful West will reap the benefits of a peaceful Iraq for generations, notwithstanding the high cost in lives and dollars.

Charles Krauthammer has written a piece for National Review Online examining history's shifting view of wartime presidents. Here's part of his conclusion:

...Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) — also absent an attack on the U.S. — that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

Read the whole thing, and forget about approval ratings.

That's how long it has been since we have had a terrorist attack on American soil. Seven years. There was nobody, and I mean nobody, who thought on September 11, 2001 that we would be able to go so long without another attack, myself included.

Victor Davis Hanson, as he so often does, has written a brilliant piece for National Review Online reflecting on last seven years. Some bits:

Years later, we tend to forget all the dimensions of that sinister homicidal bombing of our institutions. Radical Islam brazenly signaled that it need not have missiles or sophisticated bombers to burn 16 acres in the heart of Manhattan and set the Pentagon afire. Instead, it could turn from the inside out our own technology against us, in a manner that we were scarcely aware of — and in an iconic fashion at the heart of our greatest cities, ensuring collective psychological trauma that trumped even the terrible loss in blood and treasure.

...While many rightly point to lapses in the conduct of the Iraq war, faulty intelligence, and wrongheaded emphasis on supposed arsenals of WMDs rather than the casus belli outlined in the 23 writs authorized by the Congress, few can answer a more existential question: Had we not met, defeated, and humiliated tens of thousands of jihadists on the battlefields of Iraq, where else might we have inflicted such a terrible defeat on our enemies — given the nuclear sanctuary of Pakistan, the bellicose governments of Iran and Syria, and the duplicity of the Gulf monarchies? And if we had not killed, captured, scattered, and turned our enemies abroad, how then might we have prevented them from coming back here to attack us at home? And are the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, as in the past, aiding anti-American terrorists, or helping to hunt them down?

...But in years to come it may well be said that the president kept us safe for years when none thought he could, and removed the two most odious regimes in the Middle East and replaced them with the two best — and confronted a confident and ascendant radical Islam and left it demoralized and discredited among its own host Arab and Muslim constituents.

Thank you, President Bush for staying strong in face of unbelievable adversity, and for taking the fight to the enemy.

Thank you, men and women of our military, for your incredible sacrifice for and service to our country.

Thank you, leaders, intelligence agents, and law enforcement personnel of those foreign countries that have joined us in fighting Al Qaeda.

Whoever the next president is, he is going to have a heck of a challenge matching Bush's record against terrorism.

Oh, Baby. What. A. Speech.

Finally, finally, Obama was giving the dressing down he so richly deserves to a huge television audience without the MSM able to filter. Gov. Palin is smart, authentic, down-to-earth, tough, well-spoken, a true reformer, and -- let's face it -- a very attractive woman. She really is, as some are calling her, the anti-Obama.

Scanning some of the reaction this morning, here are two quotes I love:

"She was put on this earth to do two things: kill caribou and kick butt. She's all out of caribou."
-- Jonah Goldberg, National Review

"I would like to thank the US media for doing such a grand job this last week of lowering expectations by portraying Governor Palin - whoops, I mean Hick-Burg Mayor Palin - as a hillbilly know-nothing permapregnant ditz, half of whose 27 kids are the spawn of a stump-toothed uncle who hasn't worked since he was an extra in Deliverance.

How's that narrative holding up, geniuses? Almost as good as your "devoted husband John Edwards" routine?"
-- Mark Steyn, National Review

I love it.

It's crystal clear that Gov. Sarah Palin has the Obama camp and the mainstream media (OK, OK, I know they are one and the same) frightened. Obama is reduced to saying that he is more experienced than Palin (never mind that she is not running for President) because, well, he has run a presidential campaign with a big budget! No, really! As Power Line puts it,

Apparently Obama hadn't heard about Palin being Governor of the State of Alaska, which has a budget in excess of $11 billion annually and more than 24,000 employees. Also, on Obama's theory, the act of running for President gives you the experience you need to qualify to be President. That's convenient for a guy who has accomplished so little in his career in public life.If our intrepid reporters could focus on something other than Bristol Palin for a moment, maybe they would notice that Obama continues to make a fool of himself on a near-daily basis.

Plus, unlike the Messiah, Gov. Palin has an actual track record of reform, battling corruption, and reaching across party lines. She doesn't just talk about those things, she has gotten them done.

The MSM, for its part, is absorbed with Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a way of trying to undermine Gov. Palin, who represents such a threat to the Democrat Party. They are mystified that Bristol isn't going to have an abortion. They can't believe she is actually going to do the right thing and get married and raise the child. I guess they have forgotten the mother of His Most Holy Obama conceived the Savior when she was only 18.

National Review has more on the disgusting bias in the media. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: liberal bias is the #1 problem in not only the United States, but in the world today. When almost all news, issues, and problems are filtered through liberal lenses before reaching the public... whoops, I need to stop -- that's a topic for another post.

The Republican convention, or really just the fact that Republlicans exist on the planet, has brought the hard-core Dem wackos are out in force. Check out Power Line to learn about attempted murder and attacks on Cub Scout buses. Then stop by From the Duke for samples of Dem hatred and irrationality.

Of course, these disgusting incidents go unreported by the MSM, since they can't report anything unsavory about Obama's supporters, much less about His Holiness Himself.

It's been over a month since I have posted to this blog. Much of the time I have been away on vacation and, to be frank, just not in the mood to blog.

There is another factor: I've decided that my blog entries have become too long. Long posts take time, not only to write, but then to proof-read, edit, reorganize, etc. into something approaching coherent prose.

To make matters a little worse, my website editor (RapidWeaver) takes a long time to send updates to the server. I am going to tweak some settings to see if I can't speed things up.

There are many times when I felt the urge to make a quick blog entry, but didn't due to the amount of time it would require. So, I am going to try two things. First, my posts will become, for the most part, dramatically shorter, almost to the point of becoming a Tumblelog. Second, I am going to look into switching over the whole site to Tumblr, or some other quick entry system, to streamline blogging.

There are moments when I wish I had more time and/or energy to devote to this blog. As I read about an Obama gaffe, then another, and another, in a seemingly endless stream, I wish I could note all of them in blog entries. Frankly, and I mean this in all seriousness, I just can't keep up. Every once in a while, though, I just can't stand it any longer and need the catharsis of blogging.

The guy is undoubtably an intelligent human being, and he delivers prepared speeches very well, but get him away from a teleprompter and his is a disaster zone of gaffes. I have already noted many of them, but there are many, many more. Just recently, Obama said in Amman, Jordan, "You know, it's always a bad practice to say 'always' or 'never'." Hmmmm, that's a head-scratching self-refutation.

And then there is this (quoting from Investor's Business Daily):

Consider his claim during a news conference Wednesday in Israel that "just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran."

His committee? Obama isn't even a member of the Banking Committee, let alone its chairman. So was it a self-promoting lie or a misstep? Only he knows.

He doesn't even seem to know how long a president's term is, and combines that ignorance with the incredible arrogrance of assuming he will not only be elected in November, but reelected in four years: (In reference to various foreign leaders), "who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years."

Remember when he said: "I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, I listened to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'? Ummm, no those aren't the first words. Try: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

And of course this one: "As we begin our fourth century as a nation..." Wow, I always thought the birth of the United States was 1776, not 1676. I stand corrected, because, you know, the Obamessiah is never wrong.

And the mainstream media's reaction to all of this? Silence. They are too awed by the man to muster up any kind of critical thinking, and lack the backbone to compare their silence to the despicable way they treated Dan Quayle over his insignificant "potatoe" mistake.

Still, I think Obama's arrogance, ignorance, gaffes, inexperience, liberalism, not to mention his shifting positions, will find a way to seep into the average citizen's awareness, even if the liberal press covers for him. I have a growing feeling that Obama might be in for a rude awakening on election day. Call it my audacity of hope.

Wikipedia, the most often referenced encyclopedia in the world, is both a fantastic source of information and a swamp of liberal bias.

I have looked up all sorts of subjects on Wikipedia, with generally good and informative results. I consider it to be a valuable resource, however it is terribly, terribly flawed when it comes to any subject that is the least bit political.

Most people, I would wager, don't realize anybody can edit a wikipedia entry on, say, President Bush or global warming. They also don't realize there are favored people with great authority who can cancel out those edits on a whim. And those people are, seemingly without exception, liberals. They strongly enforce the liberal world-view in Wikipedia, ignoring their own guidelines.

The chief editor is William Connolley, who is an office-seeking member of England's Green Party. If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will.

Lawerence Solomon wrote a piece for National Review Online that summarizes the unfortunate situation.

So, the next time your child's teacher suggests using Wikipedia as a reference, pay attention to the subject matter. The life-cycle of the butterfly? Fine. The history of farming? Wonderful. Global warming or the Iraq war? No way. I have come to learn when I can rely on Wikipedia and when I can't. I'm not confident that the average teacher, parent, or student has learned the same lesson.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has such a large mind-share (a internet-style monopoly, much as Google has among search engines), that it's hard to see how the situation can be corrected. Yes, there is a Conservapedia, but not only is it tiny by comparison, it also swings too far to the right. Encyclopedia.com seems be more of link factory to other informational sources. Microsoft's Encarta might be worth a good look.

By far the most interesting alternative to the Wikipedia hegemony, that I know of, is the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is very comprehensive, but it costs $70 a year. I don't know if Britannica displays a liberal bias or not, but they certainly have a strong record as a serious provider of information.

As my kids get a little older and start to write reports and need a reliable encyclopedia, I will steer them away from Wikipedia. I may take the plunge on a subscription to Britannica. $70 a year might be money well spent.

Here are some recent headlines from Iraq:

Iraq Meets 15 of 18 Benchmarks

Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission (yes, Saddam really was pursuing nuclear weapons)

Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda

Iraq's Al-Maliki Wants Short-Term U.S. Agreement (in preparation of eventual withdrawal)

Taken together, these stories confirm that the liberation of Iraq has succeeded. We are now in the winding-down stage: completing the last few benchmarks, cleaning up any remaining dangerous materials, eliminating straggling Al-Qaeda operatives and, most interesting of all, working out agreement that will pave the way for U.S. withdrawal -- if not completely, then probably to some sort of long-term base, much as the U.S. maintains in Germany, South Korea, etc.

The liberation of Iraq had a brilliant beginning (the invasion and the overthrow and capture of Saddam and his sadistic sons), a brutally tough middle (Iraq became the central front in Al-Qaeda's war on the west), and now, an unglamorous, yet effective and smart conclusion where we not only wore down the insurgents, but also won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens.

Had President Bush listened to the Democrat Doomsayers (sorry for the redundancy), we would have lost. Iraq would be a miasma of Al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni strongmen, Syrian operatives, and Iranian forces, to name but a few of the vultures that would have descended. I hate to think what the price of oil would have become.

Thankfully, President Bush persevered and adjusted. Too slowly? Yes. But mistakes, big and small, are made in every war. You have to have the strength of character to overcome them. You can't wilt and withdraw during the tough times. The Democrats wilted, but Bush didn't wilt, and our armed forces didn't wilt.

We have won. Our armed forces have won. President George W. Bush has won. The Iraqi citizens have won.

I haven't posted a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I haven't had anything to write about. I just haven't had much time. Time to clear the decks with these quick hits.

First, if you live in Sarasota and you don't know about From the Duke, a conservative blog by Rich Swier, do yourself a huge favor and check it out. Rich writes well, posts every day, and, among other things, takes on the monumental task of refuting the liberal nonsense that pervades the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Highly recommended.

Next, here is one of those news stories that, upon reading it, will divide people into conservative or liberal camps. No, that's not strong enough. Let me elaborate. When you read this story, your reaction will be one of the following:

1. "That's great! I love it! It's about time we got serious about being green! But are they going far enough?"

If this is your reaction, you are insane or, if not insane, then at least completely out to lunch. You live in a fantasy world. You are lost in the deep end of liberalism. You are beyond help. Please, please don't ever get into a position of power.

2. "OK, that's fine with me. It makes me feel good."

You aren't insane, but you have been lightly brainwashed by the media and other members of the left. You aren't strong in critical thinking skills. You are not beyond help, but it will take a jarring episode to snap you out of your trance.

3. "Wow, that seems a little extreme. It makes me a little uncomfortable."

You are a moderately conservative and sensible individual, but probably not one who spends much time thinking or reading about politics. However, your horse sense tells you when something is wrong.

4. "The idea that those people will be running our country if Obama is elected scares the living bat poop out of me."

You are a rock-ribbed conservative, and you know the direction this country is headed, and you know well the dangers of liberalism.

Concerning Obama

The Friends of Barack Obama. Can you imagine the mainstream media's reaction if George Bush, when he first ran for President, had the kind of slimy friends that Obama has?

But Can He Walk On Water? Of course Obama gets away with so much because he believes he is a Messiah figure, and the press and other liberals agree.

Opportunism Knocks. As a Messiah, he gets away with flip-flops...

Obama Rejects Public Financing. ... and more flip-flops...

Cocky Ignorance. ... and can say whatever he wants, however ridiculous, and...

Does Obama Know What He's Talking About? ... then say some more ignorant things. It doesn't matter. He's the Obamessiah.

Obama's Own Presidential Seal. He can even create his own presidential seal. The arrogance of this guy knows no bounds. Again, imagine the reaction if George Bush the candidate, running against Al Gore, had made his own seal. Can you imagine the mockery?

Total Confusion. ... he gets away with moments of complete confusion and stumbling. If you haven't seen the video shown at that link, please do so. The point is not that Obama got completely lost. It happens to everyone now and then (well, maybe not to such a degree). The point is that Obama gets away with it. Can you imagine if McCain had lost himself in the same way? The media would have fallen all over themselves in calling it a "senior moment" and evidence that he is too old. They would have played the video on a continuous loop for weeks.

Obama's Web Site: How the Jewish Lobby Works. It's amazing how many unsavory people are attracted to Obama...

Communist Party of the USA Endorses Obama. ... like communists.

10 Concerns About Barack Obama. How did they possible narrow it down to just 10?

Concerning Radical Environmentalism

The Truths Shall Set You Free. A nice summary of the unintended consequences that result from overbearing liberal environmental policies.

Who's To Blame For High Gas Prices? A nice reminder of how we got where we are.

Our Greener Planet. Greener because trees, crops, and other vegetation love the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month. Is there an award for the biggest hypocrite of all time? If so, Gore has it absolutely locked up. No one else is even in the same league. They can name the award "The Gore," and call off all future competitions. Just retire it. No one else will ever be close.

Concerning Iraq

As Surge Succeeds-- Iraq Coverage Declines 92% In One Year. Gee, what a surprise. We are winning in Iraq, so the press is no longer interested. Actually, I would argue, as I have for quite awhile, that we have won, period. The war is over. What we are seeing and doing now is really police action to clean up stragglers. The Iraqi army and civilians have asserted themselves to such an extent that there is no turning back. Finally.

Bush Announces Withdrawal of 30,000 US Troops From Iraq (In Victory). This story was completely ignored since reporting it would help Bush and McCain way, way too much, and would completely trash the liberals' fantasy of defeat in Iraq.

Whew! That's enough for now. My mind is cleared of negativity. Next time, some positive thoughts.

It appears that Hillary's campaign may be coming to an end, if not now then very soon. It amazes me that the Dems are so desperate to win back the White House yet they are going to nominate a guy who is so far to the left that you have to crane your neck to keep him in view. Bill Bennett sums it up this way:

...the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.

To that, I would add:
The Democratic party is about to nominate a candidate who:
• apparently does not know how many states are in our country.
• who will say Iran is not a threat and then the very next day say, yes, it is a threat.
• thinks other countries should be able to tell us what kind of car to drive, how much food to eat, and how to set our thermostats.
• thinks 10,000 people died in a Kansas tornado that killed 12.
• has trouble with geography and timelines, and who commits enough other gaffes to make Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato the non-event it should have been all along.

The Dems have always had a significant contigent of naive, nutty socialist-types that are easily swayed by emotions and dreamy visions, but that contingent has been firmly in the minority. Until now.

It's not a news flash that the Bush administration is unpopular. That unpopularity is justified in some cases (rising government spending, the early mishandling of post-overthrow Iraq), but unjustified in others (the rising price of a barrel of oil; the over-heating in the housing loan markets, etc.) In addition, Bush get absolutely no credit for the astounding success of the Iraq surge or the fact that we are, in actuality, safer since 9/11 due to due to his aggressive fight against terrorism. He has decimated Al Qaeda.

Regardless, Bush (and many of the Republicans in Congress) have set the stage in such a way that Barry might actually win. If the Republicans had a candidate that they were excited about, I don't believe Obama would stand a chance. McCain, however much he stands in stark contrast to Obama, is not a guy that is going to drive down-trodden Republicans to the voting booths. The spectre of Obama as President, on the other hand, just might be.

Here's an AL East table I never thought I'd see a quarter of the way through the season:

The Rays in first place? The Yankees in last? Does it get any better? Well, yes, it could get better if they win the World Series, but that kind of thinking remains delusional. Still, baseball is so much more fun when your time is at least competitive. The Rays, finally, are competitive, and I won't succumb to adding a qualifier such as "at least for now."

See what getting rid of the Devil does for you?

I tend to get bored with exercise routines, even though, until recently, I was working out just twice a week. Something like circuit training would be great for several months or perhaps a year, but then it would get old, I'd plateau, and I'd walk out of the gym feeling tired, yet not any more fit. I didn't particularly look forward to exercising.

Sometimes I'd jog a little as a warm up to weight-lifting, but that usually meant jogging the 1/2 mile loop behind the YMCA a couple of times. Often, even that light jogging would leave me with a little knee or back pain, so I'd lay off for awhile and ride a stationary bike instead.

Last year, my wife starting running and decided not long afterwards that she wanted to compete in a half-marathon (13.1 miles). She trained very diligently and wisely, got good equipment, and followed a training program. She not only finished the half-marathon, but also finished at better than a 10:00 minute per mile pace. Not bad.

In late January, I decided to give running another try, and this time learn from my wife and do it right. I ditched my old, heavy cross trainers for some New Balance running shoes and let the salesman guide my choice based on my history of knee/back pain and ankle pronation. I read Runner's World magazine and went to runnersworld.com to learn about proper form, techniques for warming up, and good training programs.

As a motivator, a friend suggested signing up for an upcoming 5K (3.1 mile) race. Great idea. It provided a concrete goal and timeline, dovetailing with many training programs, which conclude with a race after a user-determined number of weeks. They aren't open-ended. They're goal oriented.

Approaching running thoughtfully and with a goal in mind has worked. I'm hooked.

The first few weeks were a little tough, since my body needed to get used the idea of running (as opposed to light, short jogging). I had some foot pain, but arch supports solved it. I've tried my best to warm up and cool down properly. I've focused on reducing my "bounce," and running as efficiently as I can.

Though it sounds like work, it isn't; it's an interesting and challenging activity. I'm running about 5 days a week, and though I think it's fair to say I was slim to start with, I've lost about 5 pounds. Easy runs, long runs, tempo runs, intervals, it's all good. I feel great when I'm running, great when I finish, and great the next day.

Now, when you start running at 42 years old, you're never going to be a top runner. In mid-February, I ran the Scrub Jay 5K (3.1 miles), a trail run in the Oscar Scherer state park, in 28:19. More recently, I finished the Run for the Turtles 5K beach run in 26:31, an 8:31 per mile pace. Compared to where I started, I am very happy with my progress. But I'm still in the bottom half of my age group (AG): males 40-45. Heck, a good third of the guys in the 65-69 AG smoked me. For even more humble pie, my time of 26:31 compares to the winner's time of 17:31. Yowza.

My goal is to finish in the top half of my AG in a 5K. While it might sound I am focused on beating my fellow man, I'm really in competition with myself. The top-half goal is just a benchmark for my own progress. When I achieve it, I'll set a new goal, and it might have nothing to do with my placement relative to other runners.

Next up is a 10K trail run this weekend in Englewood's Myakka state forest. 10K (6.2 miles) is still a little tough for me (my back gets stiff) since I have only run that far twice. So, I don't think I'll place well in my AG. Nevertheless, it should be fun.

Will I reach for a half-marathon like my wife? At this point, I doubt it. As much as I like running, training for an event like that takes a lot of time and would be tough on my body; training runs are routinely two hours long. I think I'll stick to 5Ks and an occasional 10K. I think I'd rather run faster than longer.

I get to run again tomorrow -- I can't wait.

My previous blog entry regarding my unwitting "membership" with Reservation Rewards (RR) was noticed by a gentleman who wrote me some very informative emails about not only WebLoyalty (WL) and RR, but also various other companies which operate in the same fashion. Suffice it to say that the business model of getting people to sign up for a discount coupon only to ensnare them in an ongoing membership is alive and well.

My entry was also noticed by WL, and I received a friendly email from someone in its consumer affairs department named Mary. In her email, she explained that WL "protects its reputation and monitors the blogosphere to ensure information posted on our company is truthful and accurate." She said that, despite my cynicism on their phone system being down when I tried to reach them to cancel my membership, it was indeed down only temporarily. I take her word for it.

She also explained that the reason I couldn't find my email address in their online database was that it was actually my wife who was registered. She canceled that membership and refunded the dues we had been charged.

She followed up with another email explaining that the unwitting membership occurred at the end of my wife's transaction with Shutterfly.com (not Fandango.com, as I had originally speculated). She said that my wife must have agreed to the membership since she hit "Yes" buttons and entered her email address. She also said that the "Offer and Billing Details" were available for review. She stated that an email was sent to my wife afterward.

I don't doubt for a minute that the details were available for review. I don't doubt that "Yes" buttons were pressed or that an email address was entered. My wife did not, as best as I can determine, receive the email, but it was right around the time she changed emails addresses. In any event, that email (a copy was provided by Mary) does not mention the fees or credit card charges that would appear each month. Nevertheless, I don't doubt that what WL and RR does is perfectly legal. However, it not, in my opinion, ethical. Here is a portion of my email response to Mary (edited slightly):

Look, I understand that what your company is doing is, in all likelihood, legal. I do not, however, approve of a business model which seeks to fool people. Yes, I am sure the "Offer and Billing Details" explained that her credit card information would be used to charge her each month. Yes, I am sure she entered her email and hit OK. I am also sure (although, like I said, I will confirm it) that she didn't read those details. She probably thought she was still dealing with Shutterfly. She figured that she was just getting $10 bucks off her next order, with no strings attached, just as she gets those offers/coupons from Shutterfly in the regular mail.

You can rationalize it all day long, but I would wager a large sum that a *vast* majority of your "members" are unwitting. They made a purchase with some trusted vender, an offer popped up for some coupon, they figured they were still dealing with that vendor, hit OK, entered an email, and didn't give it another thought. Let's face it, people take their time and are mentally engaged *before* a purchase is made (picking out an item or comparing it) and *during* the purchase itself (carefully entering credit card information and whatnot). But, once the "Confirm Order" button is pressed, people are on mental-automatic. The purchase is done, no need to be that careful anymore. Oh, look, a $10 coupon! Sure, hit OK...

Not convinced? Then why not include text right next to, or above, the first OK button which says, "I agree to be billed monthly per these agreement terms," with the last two words made into a hyperlink to the "Offer and Billing Details". Hmmm? You see, the "success" of your business is based on people not noticing the billing. Do you really think most people (any?) will sign up to be billed $10 each month to save $10 on a purchase?

Still not convinced? Then why have I read on the internet many, many stories about others who have become unwitting members?

Mary, all that said, I appreciate your response and followup.

I have spent far more time on this incident than I have wanted and want to end it here, but I felt an obligation to share my story and WL's response. To WebLoyalty and Reservations Rewards credit, they have refunded the fees charged, have canceled the account, and have been responsive once they noticed my blog entry. Would I have gotten such a resolution without the blog? I don't know. When they present their offers, should they state far, far more clearly and obviously that an fee will be charged each month in perpetuity? Absolutely.

Over the last few months, my wife and I have used our credit card miles to pay for some airline tickets. Therefore, when I saw a $10 charge in January from Reservation Rewards, I thought it must have been one of those little surcharges that you pay for trading your miles for flights. Same thing in February. Well, I just opened my bill for March, and it's there again. Hmmmm.

I went to the ReservationRewards.com website to check it out. They claim to be a discount service for all sorts of internet services. But a quick internet search using "reservation rewards scam" pulled up thousands of hits. It hit me that I've been scammed, and so have a lot of people, and it has been going on for years. Reservation Rewards is part of a larger operation called Webloyalty.com. Many people have filed Better Business Bureau complaints and FTC complaints, yet they are still in operation.

Here's how the scumbags do it (or at least one way they do it). They offer legitimate businesses, such as priceline.com or fandango.com, either shopping cart services (providing the technology to handle online transactions) or a discount coupon service where, at the end of a transaction, a window pops up offering the consumer a discount on their next purchase. If you click OK, then you are unwittingly signing up to be a member of Reservation Rewards and here's the key: they take, without your knowledge, your credit card information from the purchase you just made with the business and start charging you a monthly fee. And what do you get for that fee? Why, nothing, of course.

I immediately called Reservation Rewards and, predictably, got a recorded message stating that, get this, their phone system is down for maintenance. Riiiight... I then tried to discontinue my "membership" online but, of course, their system does not recognize my email address. I sent an email to their customer service, but I am not holding my breath that they will actually respond.

The good news is that my credit card company agreed to dispute the charge for not only this month, but last month too. So I may escape from this having lost only $10 plus about two hours of my time -- unless the charge appears again next month.

So what business did I patronize that started this nightmare? I'm guessing it was fandango.com, movie tickets online. There was probably a popup offer for a discount on my next purchase .and I probably assumed that fandango wasn't going to transmit my credit card information without my knowledge to an unknown company just because I clicked an OK button for a discount code. How silly of me.

The lesson: never, ever click OK on any kind of offer that appears after making a purchase. Scammers like Webloyalty.com and ReservationRewards.com might be waiting...

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T) today joined other liberal media in criticizing the 5-year Iraq war and the Bush administration. As was entirely predictable, the SH-T is relentlessly negative in its editorial, ignoring all accomplishments and signs of real progress. They must be relying on their own paper for their Iraq news.

Let me provide an overview of Iraq and a different perspective.

First, I believe it is more accurate to describe the affair as the Iraq liberation, rather than the Iraq war. After all, liberation of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy were two of the main goals of the conflict. Here's a status check on all the goals:

1. Overthrow the brutal, murderous, tyrant Saddam Hussein, a man that had supported terrorism, developed and used weapons of mass destruction (against his own people!), and ran torture chambers and rape rooms. Saddam and his two monstrous sons were overthrown and no longer soil the planet. Mission Accomplished.

2. Stop the Saddam's development of WMDs. Imagine if the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 had access to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons instead of airplanes. Imagine the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people they could have killed. Imagine the complete chaos it would cause to our economy. After 9/11, we could no longer sit back and hope that Saddam wouldn't give his WMDs to terrorists bent on murdering us.

And everybody thought he had stockpiles of WMDs. The CIA did. The Clinton Administation did. Our allies did. And most importantly to Saddam, Iran did. In fact, although it makes liberals gnash their teeth, we did find WMDs in Iraq. Yes, they were part of an older batch than the one we were looking for (I'm still not sure why that matters), but WMDs were found. Regardless of the quantity or quality of those WMDs, or whether stockpiles were moved to Syria (as the number two man in Saddam's Air Force claims), one thing is certain: WMDs are no longer being developed in Iraq and will not end up in the hands of terrorists. Mission Accomplished.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)Addressing the US SenateOctober 10, 2002

3. Provide a level of security to Iraq while a democratic government is formed. The period of time after the overthrow of Saddam through 2005 was marked by increasing peace and security. Then al Qaeda came up with what was really a smart strategy: spark a civil war, setting Shia against Sunni. With thousand-year-old animosities and rivalries already in place, it was relatively easy to set the factions against each other, but the key moment seemed to be the bombing of the Golden Temple in Sammara. Military and civilian deaths soared as violence became the norm.

It is undeniable that the Bush administration did not foresee the level of terrorism and violence that al Qaeda could generate, but neither did anybody else. In fact, al Qaeda decided to make Iraq its central front in its war against the West. It took way too long for the Bush administration to develop a new strategy to deal with al Qaeda, but it finally did with the Surge, and with changing the way the military interacts with Iraqi citizens and neighborhood.

Thanks to the new strategy, backed by John McCain but decried by liberals, Iraq has since grown more peaceful each month. Terrorism is way down. Civilian deaths are way down, military deaths are way down, and the bond between the Iraqi people and our military has never been stronger. Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda, and we have virtually eliminated them from Iraq. Sure, there are still stragglers and small pockets of trouble, but the bottom line is this: we have defeated al Qaeda in Iraq and have established a level of peace necessary for a democratic Iraqi government to continue to form. Mission Accomplished.

4. Hand over governmental responsibilities to the Iraqi government. This is still a work in progress. The pace has been excruciatingly slow, thanks to old animosities, complex demographic considerations, and the shear scale of the undertaking. This is, I believe, the toughest challenge of the Iraq liberation. While the Iraqi government is functioning (and the Iraqi people give it high marks in polls), it is not yet at a level where we can walk away. The Iraqi people do not want us to leave. How do we speed up the process? I don't know that we can. It will take time. Mission Partially Accomplished.

5. Establish a beachhead of democracy in a region of the world that desperately needs it. Imagine how the liberation of Iraq, the defeat of al Qaeda, and the birth of democracy must be affecting the citizens of, say, Iran or Syria. The example Iraq sets will be the greatest enduring benefit of the Iraq war, but the benefits will likely be realized over the course of years and decades. History, I believe, will be very, very kind to President Bush. Fair-minded historians will see Iraq as turning point in the Middle East and the war on terrorism.

There are signs already that Iraq has turned the tide against terrorism. We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11/01, an astounding 2,381 days and counting. The London bombings on 7/7/05 were almost three years ago. Al Qaeda has been chased and hounded by the Bush Administration and our numerous allies all over the world, and al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq is a major part of that story. Yes, al Qaeda, WMDs, and terrorist-supporting regimes still exist, and we could suffer an attack tomorrow. But the track record so far is undeniable strong. Mission Partially Accomplished.

Now, consider the cost of the Iraq liberation. As of today, 3,251 members of our military have been killed in action in Iraq. (The media love to quote the higher figure of deaths in Iraq (3,988), but of course, there are accidental deaths all the time in the military, even among those stationed in the U.S. in a time of peace.) While 3,251 deaths is certainly devastating for the friends and family members of those who gave their lives, any clear-eyed assessment must conclude that it is a tiny fraction of both the pre-war estimates of hundreds of thousands of deaths and the number of deaths in previous wars. Compare 3,251 to the 100,000+ dead in WWI. Compare it to the 400,000+ dead in WWII (the Marines lost more than double the number lost in Iraq in just one battle: Iwo Jima). Compare it to the 54,000 dead in Korea or the 58,000 dead in Vietnam. Yes, losing 3,251 of our finest men and women is a heavy cost. But human cost of other wars has been much, much higher.

Financially, Operation Iraqi Freedom has cost a fortune, and continues to do so. Not only does supporting the troops cost billions, but so does all the reconstruction we are doing to stabilize and improve the lives of the Iraqi people. We are up to $500+ billion with a long way to go. Without question, Iraq has been a substantial drain on our national treasury. That's why it is so important to take the long view of Iraq, the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. If we and the Iraqi people are successful, the cost in both lives and money will have been well-spent. If we aren't successful (and the only way it appears we won't be is if we abandon the Iraqi people too soon), the lives lost and billions spent will have been in vain.

Liberals are fully invested in the idea of defeat in Iraq. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (although it initially supported the war, if I recall correctly), like so many liberal organizations, refuses to acknowledge the truth that much good is happening in Iraq and the war against al Qaeda and terrorism. They can't. Any such acknowledgement of progress and positive developments would upset their world-view that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a disaster and the Bush Administration is incompetent, so it must be ignored. To show you the depth of the SH-T's state of denial, they fret in their editorial that the "depth of the American news coverage of the war" has waned. Could it be that the coverage has waned because the news has been good? Not only does good news not sell newspapers, it also destroys firmly held beliefs. Better to ignore it.

As I mentioned in a recent post, I been living a happier life these days by paying less attention to the media. For conservatives, the incessant liberal bias can become too much to swallow. My family just got back from a wonderful ski vacation in Park City, Utah. Naturally, we spent a fair amount of time in the airport waiting for our flights and were therefore subjected to the Clockwork Orange-type indoctrination that is airport CNN. As a regular FoxNews viewer is it always a jarring experience to be subjected to CNN. Still, some of the bias was so blatant, it was laugh-out-loud funny.

I specifically recall a dark intonation that the company that supplies water to our troops in Iraq (along with thousands of other supplies) and which supplied a bad batch sent to some of the troops was formerly run by... Dick Cheney! Oh, no, not Dick Cheney! What an evil company!

Why, oh why, does CNN have a monopoly on airport news? For the love of all that is good and just, would some other news network please outbid them? The idea that millions of Americans (and, I'd guess, millions of non-Americans around the world, in some foreign airports) are subjected to such slanted reported, whether they like it or not, is galling.

I also recall seeing a quick blurb that the Pentagon released a report which, according to CNN, said that there was no link between Saddam Hussien and al Qaeda. That struck me as very odd, since I had read of extensive links in previous reports by the Weekly Standard, among others. Being at the airport at the time, and without an internet connection, I couldn't check out the story for myself, so I dismissed it as probably another example of misleading reporting.

I was right.

Powerline has a nice summary of the situation, based on reading the actual Pentagon report, something the mainstream press either did not do, or chose not to accurately report. Here's part of the report's abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

No link or connection, huh?

I'll never forget my introduction to National Review. I was in my 20's, at an airport, looking for reading material for my next flight. I was unfamiliar with National Review, but something prompted me to take a copy of the magazine off the rack. I flipped through it, and was astounded by the quality of the writing and thought. I purchased it and devoured it on my flight. My eyes were opened to intellectual, pragmatic conservatism.

In an age when conservatism is being ill-defined by the poor practices of some our elected, so-called conservatives, National Review, and these days its website too, are steady beacons of clear thinking. National Review is conservatism, period. It's very safe to say that my own conservative beliefs have been shaped by largely by my father, National Review, and Rush Limbaugh, each in his/its own way.

I have added this quote of his to my Favorite Quotes section. It perfectly demonstrates his quick wit:

(As told by Ronald Reagan) "And once when Bill was asked what job he wanted in the Administration of his friend the President, he replied in his typically retiring and deferential way: "Ventriloquist."

Thank you, Mr. Buckley, and rest in peace.

Prior to this election cycle, I was wrapped up in politics. I was involved at the local party level, but beyond that I would devour political news, commentary, blogs, and talk shows. I'd get extremely annoyed at the omnipresent liberal bias in the news, on TV, or at the movies. Even though I ended up on the winning side more often than not, it just became too much. Ask my wife.

I decided to make a change. Cut back, waaaay back, on politics. Life's too short to get so caught up in it, especially when so many politicians run as one kind of person and end up being a different kind once in office, Republicans included.

So, this election cycle, I've sat back, relatively detached from the primary battles. A funny thing has happened though. The primaries on both sides have become extraordinarily interesting. No, I'm not back deep into politics, but I have been following the broad strokes, and it's fascinating that:

• The Clinton machine is crumbling before our eyes. Not only has Saint Barrack captured the imagination of liberals, but even Dems are finally discovering the Clintons just aren't good people. We Republicans have been telling them that for years. See, we told you so.

• So many people are taken with Saint Barrack, when in reality he is as far-left as they come, at least on the national stage. He is the most liberal member of the Senate. Only a relatively small fraction of the country, perhaps 5-10%, is as liberal as he is. Since he's an eloquent speaker, the press swoons for him, and he's managed to avoid discussing his actual record. Will the electorate wake up before the election? That's John McCain's task. It won't be easy.

• McCain is actually the Republican nominee. I can hardly believe it, but that's what happens when there are numerious, similar candidates in the race. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson all split the traditional Republican base vote, allowing Maverick McCain to waltz in. I hope he picks my man Romney as his running mate.

• The timing of business cycles has been very unlucky for Republicans lately. The first George H. Bush was not a great economic president, but he did hand Clinton a growing economy. Clinton did nothing to help, except finally agree to go along with the Republican plan to reform the welfare system, yet he was the beneficiary of the arrival of the internet age. And just when that bubble was bursting, he hands George W. Bush a recession, which is only exacerbated by 9/11 and the arrival of terrorism into our nation's consciousness. Thankfully, Bush wisely lowered taxes, creating the longest sustained period of job growth in U.S. history. But banks and individuals go overboard with their new wealth, and create a housing boom and then a housing bust, which is magnified by the rising price of oil, thanks to growing economies in China, India, etc. So here we are, in the middle of another election cycle, and then economy is at a low ebb while the housing mess is sorted out. If Saint Barrack is elected President, he will be taking office just as the economy gains steam again. And the press will credit him.

• Even though Saint Barrack is a hard-lefty, I'd rather see him as president than Hillary Clinton. I think he'd be this generation's Jimmy Carter: charming to those looking for "change" or a fresh face, but a huge flameout once in office, ushering in the beginning of a new conservative era.

• I will be voting for McCain. Yes, I will hold my nose, especially when it comes to his stances on Guantanamo, climate change, and campaign finance "reform," but he is a spending hawk, which we desperately need, and he is is very strong on national defense, which is vital in this age of Islamofascism.

In a sane world, a contest between the experienced, moderate, national hero McCain and inexperienced, far-left, empty suit Obama wouldn't be a contest. In a sane world.

I have accumulated a few bits about global warming that tie nicely together:

First, anecdotal evidence that world isn't ending: Snow falls on Baghdad for first time in memory

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe is a very interesting and persuasive piece on recent temperature patterns and the chill the southern hemisphere has been experiencing. Just over a year ago, the BBC News announced that "experts" were predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on records.

It wasn't.

In fact, since the high in 1998 (recent high that is -- we're not talking about the high temperatures from the middle ages or the age of the dinosaurs), temperatures have declined slightly. Since 2001, temperatures have remained essentially unchanged, despite the supposedly massive amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.

Wake me when we beat 1998...

And finally, this classic Day-by-Day strip (an online comic) poking fun at the Doomsayer-in-Chief, Al Gore.