I find solace at the keyboard. Making the mistake of watching the Sunday morning network news circuit simply makes my blood boil and blood pressure rocket to near lethal levels. We'll cover several topics being hotly contested on Capitol Hill and within the confines of news studios in Washington and New York City. The sad fact remains; not one of the top selling news stories has one iota of signifigance in the propagation of peace and prosperity within the borders of America.
The newly elected Democratic Congress responds to the needs of the nation as expected. The House Democrats beat the drum of troop withdrawl and passed a bill (with 17,000 pork earmarks, makes you feel good about your tax dollars) for supplemental funding of military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill also contained a firm date for the redeployment of U.S. military forces in September 2008. Basically the Democrats drew a line in the sand and conceded defeat to insurgents and radical Muslims. The Democrats never understood or believed in a strong national defense to begin with so I certainly understand their disdain for utilizing American troops for the liberation of an entire culture and the stabilization of a violent and fundamentalist Middle East. All the time spent debating, spinning, and arguing over a bill that George W. Bush would veto even under the influence of cocaine and strong scotch. I think the idea of a hearty, proud, and potent national security policy literally scares the speaker and majority leader. The only national defense system that makes their progressive ideas sustainable revolves around a reactionary philosophy as opposed to one of proaction. Basically let's contract national security out to carnies not working during breaks in the carnival season and contract airpower responsibilities to France's three plane air force or Lithuania's advanced fleet of helium balloon craft. The left wing liberals in this country simply have no idea of what the military means to a country; it is not about reactionary protections but rather world leverage in maintaining peace through strength. The fall of the Roman Empire begins anew. Oh, as an aside our borders are wide open and Iran continues to defy weapons inspectors and the U.N. while Pelosi wastes your time debating non-binding resolutions. Aren't elections supposed to be about furthering the agenda of the taxpaying populace?
Al Gore testifed on Capitol Hill on the subject of global warming. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that each and every American including the scientific community agrees with the premises of Gore's arguments. Therein lies the problem. There is mass confusion on the difference between scientific consensus and scientific fact. Scientific consensus simply means a vote has occurred on some proposed theory. It is no different than the American public voting for the next American Idol winner. It doesn't mean that the winning contestant is more viable than any other or maintains more factual merit. All of the empirical data used to build the foundations for a global warming thesis can be challenged. It has been warmer since 1990 and man is believed to be responsible for this through increased emissions of carbon dioxide but what about the even warmer temperatures obtained through geologic comparisons in what is known as the medieval period? Did lords and noblemen in the English countryside have hidden textile plants beneath the sod secretly emitting CO2 as serfs slaved about in the burgeoning candlepowered economy of 1500 A.D.?
The most alarming facet of Gore's movie and public display is the grossly overblown alarmism he spreads to justify and rationalize his position. Gore touts scientific consensus in regards to the tenets of his theory but disavows the same consensus when it comes to the actual and probable effects of global warming. Al believes we will be cooked like chickens in ten years only to be swept away by flooding waters from the seas rising 20 feet. The international scientific community on the other hand (Yes, Gore's own clique of scientific supporters) believes the effects to be far more minimal. Seas may rise several inches rather than feet and no one in Gore's camp even talks about the benefits of increased warmth over increased cold in regards to other Democratic talking points like energy conservation. If we bought Gore lock, stock, and barrel the widespread and catastrophic damage to our economy, standard of living, and place in the world far outweighs the supposed and surmised climate changes pushed by Gore's camp. It is scary to watch the mainstream media spoon feed the American public one side of a debate spearheaded by a secular dirt worshipper determined to justify his place and power base in modern America. I guess I'll invest in an umbrella.
The scandal driven media continues its full frontal assault on the Bush Administration. I am not saying Bush doesn't have plenty of skeletons rattling in his closet but nonetheless the attacks on every move made within the administration seem unparalleled in comparison to previous administrations. Clinton got a pass on refusing to take the handover of Bin Laden from Sudan among other cigar-stained relapses of morality. So now the race is on to convict Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in regards to the firings of several United States attorneys. Apparently opponents of the administration cite political motivations in the firings especially in the case of New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). Here is a news flash.
It simply doesn't matter and the firings are perhaps the most insignificant news story in the history of the mainstream press. Bush and his appointees can fire an attorney whenever and however as provided for in the Constitution under executive privilege. Bush can call Alberto into his office and inform him that he simply doesn't like the brands of soft drinks consumed by the attorneys and fire them for that reason. He may not like that several of the attorneys chose boxers over briefs and fire them for that reason. He may not like that one attorney's wife's mole on her nose and especially the wiry hair protruding from it and fire him for that reason. It simply isn't a story. It certainly isn't a story being reported fairly because Clinton's half-man attorney Janet Reno swept all 93 attorneys onto the sidewalk. What about the sudden dismissal of the U.S. attorney investigating Illinois Democrat Dan Rostenkowski's ordeal? No politics played there. It is the same biased media double standard pretending that inside deals and politically motivated firings are unique to this administration or any other. Maybe their reporting would hold more credibility if both sides were examined instead of the viewpoint they choose to editorialize. Remember the media is smarter than you are and you will be told only what is in your best interest according to an editor that donates to liberal causes. Sounds like sheep doo-doo to me.
The newly elected Democratic Congress responds to the needs of the nation as expected. The House Democrats beat the drum of troop withdrawl and passed a bill (with 17,000 pork earmarks, makes you feel good about your tax dollars) for supplemental funding of military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill also contained a firm date for the redeployment of U.S. military forces in September 2008. Basically the Democrats drew a line in the sand and conceded defeat to insurgents and radical Muslims. The Democrats never understood or believed in a strong national defense to begin with so I certainly understand their disdain for utilizing American troops for the liberation of an entire culture and the stabilization of a violent and fundamentalist Middle East. All the time spent debating, spinning, and arguing over a bill that George W. Bush would veto even under the influence of cocaine and strong scotch. I think the idea of a hearty, proud, and potent national security policy literally scares the speaker and majority leader. The only national defense system that makes their progressive ideas sustainable revolves around a reactionary philosophy as opposed to one of proaction. Basically let's contract national security out to carnies not working during breaks in the carnival season and contract airpower responsibilities to France's three plane air force or Lithuania's advanced fleet of helium balloon craft. The left wing liberals in this country simply have no idea of what the military means to a country; it is not about reactionary protections but rather world leverage in maintaining peace through strength. The fall of the Roman Empire begins anew. Oh, as an aside our borders are wide open and Iran continues to defy weapons inspectors and the U.N. while Pelosi wastes your time debating non-binding resolutions. Aren't elections supposed to be about furthering the agenda of the taxpaying populace?
Al Gore testifed on Capitol Hill on the subject of global warming. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that each and every American including the scientific community agrees with the premises of Gore's arguments. Therein lies the problem. There is mass confusion on the difference between scientific consensus and scientific fact. Scientific consensus simply means a vote has occurred on some proposed theory. It is no different than the American public voting for the next American Idol winner. It doesn't mean that the winning contestant is more viable than any other or maintains more factual merit. All of the empirical data used to build the foundations for a global warming thesis can be challenged. It has been warmer since 1990 and man is believed to be responsible for this through increased emissions of carbon dioxide but what about the even warmer temperatures obtained through geologic comparisons in what is known as the medieval period? Did lords and noblemen in the English countryside have hidden textile plants beneath the sod secretly emitting CO2 as serfs slaved about in the burgeoning candlepowered economy of 1500 A.D.?
The most alarming facet of Gore's movie and public display is the grossly overblown alarmism he spreads to justify and rationalize his position. Gore touts scientific consensus in regards to the tenets of his theory but disavows the same consensus when it comes to the actual and probable effects of global warming. Al believes we will be cooked like chickens in ten years only to be swept away by flooding waters from the seas rising 20 feet. The international scientific community on the other hand (Yes, Gore's own clique of scientific supporters) believes the effects to be far more minimal. Seas may rise several inches rather than feet and no one in Gore's camp even talks about the benefits of increased warmth over increased cold in regards to other Democratic talking points like energy conservation. If we bought Gore lock, stock, and barrel the widespread and catastrophic damage to our economy, standard of living, and place in the world far outweighs the supposed and surmised climate changes pushed by Gore's camp. It is scary to watch the mainstream media spoon feed the American public one side of a debate spearheaded by a secular dirt worshipper determined to justify his place and power base in modern America. I guess I'll invest in an umbrella.
The scandal driven media continues its full frontal assault on the Bush Administration. I am not saying Bush doesn't have plenty of skeletons rattling in his closet but nonetheless the attacks on every move made within the administration seem unparalleled in comparison to previous administrations. Clinton got a pass on refusing to take the handover of Bin Laden from Sudan among other cigar-stained relapses of morality. So now the race is on to convict Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in regards to the firings of several United States attorneys. Apparently opponents of the administration cite political motivations in the firings especially in the case of New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). Here is a news flash.
It simply doesn't matter and the firings are perhaps the most insignificant news story in the history of the mainstream press. Bush and his appointees can fire an attorney whenever and however as provided for in the Constitution under executive privilege. Bush can call Alberto into his office and inform him that he simply doesn't like the brands of soft drinks consumed by the attorneys and fire them for that reason. He may not like that several of the attorneys chose boxers over briefs and fire them for that reason. He may not like that one attorney's wife's mole on her nose and especially the wiry hair protruding from it and fire him for that reason. It simply isn't a story. It certainly isn't a story being reported fairly because Clinton's half-man attorney Janet Reno swept all 93 attorneys onto the sidewalk. What about the sudden dismissal of the U.S. attorney investigating Illinois Democrat Dan Rostenkowski's ordeal? No politics played there. It is the same biased media double standard pretending that inside deals and politically motivated firings are unique to this administration or any other. Maybe their reporting would hold more credibility if both sides were examined instead of the viewpoint they choose to editorialize. Remember the media is smarter than you are and you will be told only what is in your best interest according to an editor that donates to liberal causes. Sounds like sheep doo-doo to me.
1 comment:
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment