Friday, February 29, 2008

Global Warming, Don't Buy That Ton of Sunscreen Just Yet.

What is that creature up in the tree? Do you see it dear? Is that some kind of Arctic bear escaping the perils of the polar ice caps? No, no, no. It's just a dirty, smelly, and disoriented Woody Harrelson. Should we take him some food? No, I see he's getting by with a jug of lemonade up there. Those green groups could publish television advertisements featuring any one of a hundred wacko environmentalists like B-actor Harrelson and his elitist friends. Each commercial ends with, "Coming to a tree near you." That would explain the mess on my new lawn I guess.

There are a number of issues in which the positions of both 2008 Democratic presidential contenders should scare us to death. Suffice it to say Republican candidate John McCain doesn't lag far behind. I argue with those that claim some Democrats and far-left liberals (including Republican liberal McCain) disavow religion. This whole global warming phenomenon fits that bill for them quite nicely as Christianity does for a majority of others. For political leftists "An Inconvenient Truth" is the spoken word and that in and of itself ends the controversy. We cause the warming, we need to blame ourselves, and we will be held accountable. How does all that happen without destroying an economy, jobs, growth, and standard of living? You better read on because it doesn't.

I find it interesting that far left activists and politicians including Clinton, Obama and House Speaker Pelosi support punishing oil companies with 18 billion dollars worth of fines and carbon taxes which Nancy will then redirect to her green constituencies with marked agendas. Unless the excited utterances of "clean environment do-gooders" paralyzed a clear majority of American taxpayers and maybe it has, have we forgotten that for at least the next 15 years our economy will be petroleum based and right now it hovers at nearly $3.50 per crippling gallon? The American consumer that relies on oil for survival cannot afford much more "environmental" punishment than this current market painfully inflicts. That is why the cause/effect relationship between human carbon output and its effect on the environment and this possibly insignificant warming cycle deserves so much attention.

Al Gore's dedication to a cause like the environment may under more direct and honest circumstances be admirable and worthy of praise. Unfortunately for Gore and his minions, the premise of the movie and message is based on agenda driven science rather than a reliance on accepted data retrieval, interpretation, and thesis. In other words the science is molded to fit a given hypothesis. A supposedly unbiased mainstream press fuels the fire towards this end. Gore thrives on the contrived adulation while millions of Americans unwittingly soak it up during network and cable news broadcasts. "Hey, when does the movie start?" Al Gore is a demogogue supported by mainstream press agents including those producers and journalists putting out propaganda like "Scorched Earth" and "Planet in Peril" and other such mindless drivel. There has been no formal debate against Gore and his supposed consensus of climate experts and a cadre of scientists. Maybe there is a small sliver of hope in the coming days.

The Heartland Institute will host The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change at the Marriot New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in the city from March 2 through 4th 2008. Hundreds of scientists given no voice by Gore, those like him, and the liberally biased mainstream press will be allowed to give their viewpoints and dissenting opinions on climate change. That will be a nice break from what is force fed to you through the tube-media and tabloid publications like the New York Times. Before you pipe up and say they're a funded arm of an oil company or lobby keep in mind they've accepted no more than 5% of their budget from any oil company and no money from them in the last two years. Ask some of Gore's supporters how much money they've received from the radical people and their Socialist/Fascist agenda to propagate a debate-less theory.

Al Gore and other liars involved in the fear mongering environmental consensus club have been asked to join in the debate but as usual most if not all of them declined to attend. They never asked organizations like the Heartland Institute for comments or debate during their moment in the sun and just as expected when politely asked to attend this conference there is no response. If these facts are so self-evident you'd think Gore would jump at the chance to put an end to the debate once and for all in a venue that would surely make him immortal. That in and of itself should make you interested in pursuing the issue further and keeping a healthy distance on reports from mainstream media outlets.

I hope the scientists at this conference cover the following topics or at least touch on them. You keep track too.

1. How do you explain warming during what has been coined the Medieval Period? There certainly was no carbon output from industrialization at this time.

2. What effect does ubanization (i.e., paving and construction at points of measurement) have on the consensus scientists readings and trends?

3. What proof do consensus scientists give showing for a fact that we are not in a recovery from the "Little Ice Age?"

4. Is there scientific data suggesting that warming played any part in the chain of events that led to dinosaur extinction?

5. Isn't a quasi-measurement involving carbon outputs always a lagging indicator? How would we know now what effect these outputs have if we have no scientific way to determine this?

Keep an eye on the debate and hit to keep up with this all important debate and fleecing. And by the way, if Woody doesn't get out of your tree by next Tuesday I've heard he can be lured with the assistance of some mixed nuts and a pellet gun. I'll see you all on Arbor Day.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Hillary is sure to become one mean badger.

As you can see I snapped this picture of an unhappy Hillary Clinton shortly after another one of her stunning primary collapses in Wisconsin, affectionately known as the "Badger State." (That is one hell of a metaphoric segway if I do say so myself.) Actually for you by the book science types out there the correct breed of vermin shown here is the "Marxist Badger." Whenever Hillary stands on a stage forcing herself to smile for the network cameras, smile at ugly mothers with ugly children, and smile with clueless wellwishers I can assure you my gag reflex simply responds uncontrollably. I've never seen a camera angle that actually captures her knee high jackboots. Come on now NBC, we know you love her but let's see the leather! Now that the nomination is slipping from her grasp not even the invocation of the superdelegate ploy saves her unless it is reported to me with great joy that the popular vote results have been thrown for another lustful Clinton power play. Take that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson! The liberal fanatics would shred each other in riotous fashion which would play out sadly on our television screens. You have to admit it would be far more entertaining than an ultimate fighting or American Gladiator marathon. Hillary's corrupt and loose zippered husband's attempts to bolster his man-wife's campaign backfired because it simply reminded the American populace of the Clinton scandal machine and 25 years of misdeeds and power addiction. Luckily enough for the far-left faithful, frontrunner Barack Hussein Bin Laden Obama can arguably be seen as the most liberal candidate the Democratic Party can offer up on its pyre of deceptive lies and fascist ideology. Yes I said fascist because isn't it interesting that the Democratic candidates are the only ones that tout the state's control of most everything central to the operation of the country on a daily basis. The rank and file Democratic Stalinists are simply abuzz with excitement at the prospect of not just one but two wonderful candidates with visions for making the state or your adherence to its directives all encompassing. Hooray! Hooray! Government programs and redistributed income for everyone! If that fails, we'll just create another government program to fix that one and another one for that one until maybe with any luck the United States government will employ a majority of American people like well trained robots. We'll pay 50% income tax to feed the machine and for once we can all be equal! Laugh now but it's coming.

So Hillary loses and slithers back to her hole in New York, then what? Barack "I went to a radical Islamist school as a young man but have forgotten to bring it up" Obama easily captures the White House in November running against an angry old white guy that has no chance against vile and vicious media smears by liberal activist organizations like the New York Times and NBC News. Hordes of indoctrinated followers will camp on lawns in Washington D.C. and at the National Mall after Obama's inauguration. They follow him because he promised change in glowing terms with the deepest of emotional sincerity. He didn't promise much else on the substance end but he did promise change. Specifics on policy apparently serve no purpose to the modern voting bloc of apathetic and uninformed Americans now comparing Obama to JFK. I'm not sure what positives made JFK such a revered leader either other than he was a young man taken tragically by an assassin's bullet. I think Obama supporters must postulate the following: "Man, life is so hard I'm just glad that Barack came along to CHANGE circumstances for me. I just can't cope and he'll TAKE CARE OF ME and that makes him just the greatest. Have you heard him speak? I don't remember what he said but he said it so eloquently. He said the government is going to provide healthcare paid for by all of us at large. Can you pass the fries with that burger?"

We are in a mess and this Republican administration has left loyal conservatives like me behind. Couple this with a preoccupation of style over substance and I have no doubt in my swelling mind that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. I guess looking on the bright side, his four years in office will probably destroy liberalism as we know it if we're around to reap those rewards. Apparently Barack has a fondness for his old buddy in Iran. He wants to sit down and acquiese and capitulate to madmen in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Terror will again gain a strong foothold due to our cowardice. All of America is wishing for an Obama presidency. Dear God be awfully careful what you wish for.

Hold on till we meet again. By the way, have you noticed that your morning coffee seems to have more flavor or maybe a "Barackness" to it since his stunning rise to the top? I was just wondering.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Barack Obama? Could Hillary be right? I shudder.

I must not be completely rid of my recent bout with influenza yet. Apparently during a moment of viral haze I wandered into the garage and consumed either weed spray or really old paint chips. I actually agree with Hillary Clinton! The conservative voices alive and dead that so delicately formed my social and fiscal outlook must be spinning in the grave or at the very least choking on their Rainbow Stew. Hillary Clinton, the great socialist Satan and me the great right wing nut job in agreement? If I had the poison pill I'd probably swallow it.

As Hillary finds herself behind in the delegate count this week and more importantly further behind in the momentum count, the gloves are coming off her bony pointed fingers. Basically Hillary and I agree on one substantive point regarding Barack Bob Shiny Pants. Barack's message and leadership skills are based on what? Yeah that's a cricket chirping and a pin dropping. Oh no, the room goes silent. I've been saying it for some time because early in the primary process I didn't really believe Barack had a legitimate shot at the Democratic nomination. Barack is all snake oil and no substance. I think he enters a speech event full of doe-eyed elitists that want to feel so good about themselves for electing the first African American president that they forget to ask themselves if he's qualified. We'll get back to the race thing in a minute.

What exactly is it about old Shiny Pants? He's a nice looking guy and talented speaker or "communicator" but what is he communicating? I can guarantee you he is passing along nothing of substance. I want to change Washington, I want to change our place in the world, I want to change underwear. My God people you're electing the leader of the free world here not the next American Idol. Oh wait, he's a lawyer. That's good news. So is Hillary and her corrupt significant other the one and only old "Slick Willie Magic Zipper." Lawyers are at the root of all evil that is the modern House of Representatives and Senate in Washington D.C. What else qualifies Barack? He's such a great communicator in reaching out and touching our soul. Yeah? Lassie reached out and touched my soul when she found little Jimmy in the well but I didn't run out and paint "Lassie for President" signs either.

Has Barack sponsored one piece of legislation during his extensive 18 month iconic career of serving our country as a senator? The answer is no. If you want to elect a token "communicator" to make yourself feel good and warm as most liberals crave, why not elect Denzel Washington? I mean Denzel got an Oscar for his role in Training Day and if ever a token award was given that was it. What about this race thing anyway? Why is Barack for all intents and purposes to be the first African American nominee, he's half white isn't he? Couldn't I just as easily call him a white candidate as a black one? Why is the black now more important than the white?

If you're a Democrat and want to vote true conviction vote for Hillary. Even if she's wrong about nearly everything and would like to create a Politburo in Washington at least she's got real substance even if that substance is medieval and deadly. If you're bent on voting for Barack because he's mixed race and that would make you feel damn good about yourself you better think about what you're doing. I don't care if he's been voted the most liberal senator in America. What has he got to offer all of us in this time of war against radical Islamic fundamentalism? Sadly he has nothing and I'm afraid his supporters are too infatuated with his Hollywood traits rather than even the most meager substance and that friends will certainly cost us all in the end.

I'll see you all soon.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Miller Time

I've waited far too long to pay tribute to a best friend and all around superb human being I've had the pleasure of knowing quite well for nearly 15 years now. As often as people move and shift in modern life while changing jobs and focus, it is really no surprise how we lose touch with those we call the closest of friends. Not in this case. Sheriff Thomas K. Miller and I have known each other since late 1993 and maintained a closeness (no, not in a manly way) ever since. We still to this day engage in that gross police humor and I always tease him about me dating his very dedicated and sweet wife. (What he doesn't know won't hurt him or better yet won't hurt me since I live miles away now!) I graduated from the law enforcement academy in Montana that year and began thumbing for a job in a rural area that fit my eastern Montana background and interests. I found my first law enforcement gig in north central Montana. Back then "big Tom" was a deputy and a very well respected one at that in the city and county we served. I was 22 years old then and when I first met T.K. I thought he was just a mountain of a man. Once you spoke to him you would find immediately that he is a gentle soul with an appreciation for humor (gallows or otherwise) and unwavering honesty.

No, this is not an obituary as he is very much alive and running things in his department efficiently and competently (Yes, I could probably do better but don't have the time to challenge him in making those thousands of lip impressions on the rears of local luminaries and so on,,,.....) as he always has since his ascenscion to the office. When men and women work in a profession such as law enforcement the personal bonds are enhanced because of the trust involved watching each other's backs in dicey situations. You see just about every ugly and heart wrenching facet of humanity and eventually every officer's emotions run the gamut from intense adrenalin rushes to panic and fear and to the depths of sadness. That's where a friend and fellow officer like Sheriff Miller became so important on a personal level to his officers.

If we were on the way to a hot call involving guns, knives, or violence it was always comforting to hear from dispatch that 11-1 was responding. (Although once he clipped that Sheriff's badge on his chest he came in to the office wearing polo shirts, a yuppie holster with that jamming Colt .45, and an apparent medical condition that precluded him from ever venturing out after dark.) You knew you could count on his physical strength but more importantly you knew you could count on his quiet resolve and disarming personality.

But more important than the dispatch calls and late night laughs while on patrol was the way he held the department together in times of great loss. I won't lament for too long but those of us on the old crew lost a great young friend just entering his prime as a man and new father. Tom handled it all with grace and poise and carried most of us that were close on his shoulders. That is only one of many instances in our past I could reflect on. His leadership pulled the officers in the department together and made them friends too. Tom faciliated the best of camaraderie in all of us. (Except for Weber and Novotny, very socially inept!)

So in closing I want to thank Tom for being a good friend and someone you could always look up to, literally and figuratively. You are a salt of the earth type of fellow and anyone that knows you will be better for it. Now before your head swells up too much (you know what I mean) I plan on leaving you with a few funny words or deeds from the old days with some of the boys.

Tom M.- I know what happened out at the dikes east of town. Pepto anyone?
Bryan W.- Just the most fast talking and quick thinking perv on the planet.
Scott M.- I died laughing after she blew too hard on that Intoxilyzer!
Greg S.- So tight a jackhammer wouldn't do. Steaks from Jim's freezer?
Shawn- My God a date with a chiropracter or driving school instructor.
Larry-I know you know every nook and cranny in the city. Scary, very scary.
Tim-George Jetson's jammy eyes? I thought you had him in Whitewater.
Dan R.-I never knew monkeys got nosebleeds.
Alan-I taught you everything you know; too bad it didn't stick.
Burt-I know why you take those long supper breaks you bad dog.
Bones-An old time croney like me. Someday the government will arrest us.
Mike G.-I had the slack pulled out of the trigger for you that night.
Travis L.-OK until a perp had intestinal problems.
Tye F.- I never knew executing a sick horse could be so damn funny!
Scott S.-You kept it rockin' from the Delta to the DMZ!

Well Tom, a little trip down memory lane I hope you'll share with the guys.
Take care and keep on fighting the good fight and remember from your old friend,

Burma Shave.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Pimping Chelsea Clinton? Ugh.

David Shuster, an anchor at MSNBC, apparently ruffled the Clinton campaign's feathers the other day because he accused the campaign of "pimping out Chelsea Clinton" in an attempt to gain more recognition for her mother in Hollywood. During an interview with an analyst the discussion centered on Clinton's campaign and its dwindling coffers. Shuster then asked an obvious question about Chelsea's calls to celebrities in an attempt to garner high profile exposure and a few $50's and $100's for her mother's war chest. I said war chest.

The Clinton campaign reacted unfavorably to the unintended slight of the unhandsome and toothy former first daughter. The head of MSNBC and NBC News vehemently condemned Shuster and his ill fated metaphoric slight. I would imagine both of these failing news organizations panicked because the thought of losing Bill and Hillary Clinton's trust and favor signified the crumbling of their very own Holy Grail. NBC News in general maintains the modern journalistic standard in its propagation of left leaning and biased news coverage. At almost every chance both networks cast favorable light on liberal viewpoints and insist on slanting hard news stories as far to the left as editors of the networks deem acceptable. I am sure that at least one editor at MSNBC nearly swallowed his uppers when Shuster humorously accused Hillary Clinton of callously using her daughter to pander.

Let's sort this out and state a few facts. Of course the Clintons and both networks came down hard on Shuster for his remarks. You don't use the restroom where you eat if you catch my drift. Sorry for that old cliche' but I hesitate to use bad words here for fear of upsetting the Clintons or NBC News. They'll slant stories to the left or denigrate conservative values but they never ever cuss and that's a fact Jack. Point number two is also quite obvious. Of course Chelsea is being pimped out by Hillary and her handlers, not dog handlers but political handlers. Chelsea has dog handlers but rarely are they seen on camera. Hillary Clinton would probably sell her daughter to the highest bidder in a prostitution ring in Thailand or pit bull breeder in Des Moines if it benefited her rise to absolute power.

Isn't it funny that one of the most vicious political machines in the history of American politics suddenly tries to capitalize on the fruits of an unintended metaphor that was in fact darn funny even if accidental? I guarantee if Barack Obama or better yet any Republican of your choosing was tied down spread eagle in an interrogation room and Hillary entered with a filet knife in her hand someone would exit the room a falsetto for life. Hillary Clinton weaves her way through the political tapestry of this election season based on slant, half-truths, and a nearly devouring type of contempt for anyone standing in her way or opposing her misguided and all too controlling power agenda. She is as vile and mean spirited as they come so don't feel too sorry for the unintended words uttered by the now job hunting Shuster. A wolverine like Hillary Clinton will turn any positive comment or negative hurt committed against her or someone in her pack into a positive for her sociocommunist and domineering vision for your world.

By the way, just for the intestinal comfort of the information hungry readers and viewers, do not mention "pimping" and Chelsea Clinton in the same sentence. If you don't get it just ask a pool of male voters between the ages of 18 and 30.

Good night and good luck.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Mormon Sympathizer Bashes My Anti-Mormon Piece

I thought I could put this whole "I don't like the Mormon cult" thing to bed but someone of flesh and bone or perhaps a cyber "only" being calling himself Brad tried to haze me on the right path regarding my visceral disdain for Mormonism. I hope Brad scrolls through my blog once in awhile so he can read my retaliation that he so graciously predicted I'd spring from the ethos with. After reading Brad's response to my Glenn Beck piece he thinks I am both bigoted and wrong about Mormons not being Christians. Brad, please forward my article to Jeff Lindsay because your response to me though well intended and marginally drafted remains rather pedestrian on an intellectual level and I'm going to tell you why.

First, don't read too much into what I wrote in the Glenn Beck piece. Please just pull the factual truths from the words. I appreciate your disagreement with my philosophical tenets but calling me an idiot isn't exactly the best way to facilitate a scholarly argument. I am not recommending we revisit the Crusade-like hatred against Mormons and their beliefs or to relive the persecutions in Missouri of 19th Century fare. I know lots of kind and gentle Mormons and completely agree that most live very productive and successful lives while striving for the model of ideal citizenship. Did I tell you that as I pen this rebuttle that I may be voting for Mitt Romney for President because of his conservative ideals and the fact he simply has the best hair of all the presidential candidates? All I said in the piece was that Mormonism begat Mormonism and have a bang up time believing in it if you want to but don't call it Christian. Keep reading Brad. I'll give you factual examples of why I can exclude it from Christianity while you lump the religion into orthodox Christian thought through a variety of petty rationalizations.

Let's use a political example to start. It is perfectly legitimate for a person within the privacy of their own heart and soul to question if he or she subjectively believes that Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs may or may not influence or control his actions in such a way as to provide any concerns of merit about his governance and direct influence in our lives. Delving further into one's personal faith and belief in Christianity, it is also possible to define the basics of what makes you think your religion is "Christian" and what fundamentals of Mormonism make it not Christian. That is not bigotry. It is a sort of personal comparative analysis. Our government as a controlling body cannot impose any religious tests on its leaders but we can at the most private and intrapersonal level. If a radical Muslim ran for office on a platform of converting America to a rule of Sharia law and could run because of the protections provided in our Constitution against religious discrimination, would you vote for him? If you didn't vote for him would you be a bigot? You just fell into the first trap set by Mormon apologists. You pigeonholed or categorized me as a bigot for disagreeing about the fundamental construction of the Mormon and Christian relationship. This is the first example of why what I wrote and you disagreed with precludes me from being a bigot. I may be an idiot Brad but I disproved your bigot thesis. Now let's talk about the Christian versus Mormon argument in more detail,,,,,,,again.

First, being Christian-like doesn't make you a Christian. Whether you call Christianity a belief system or religion because it's the quickest way to differentiate your preference from other so-called mainstream religions like Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, and so on, simply calling yourself a Christian doesn't automatically adhere you to normative Christian ideology. Most of us that call ourselves mainstream Christians believe in some fundamental things that we believe cannot be manipulated by any other sect, Christian or otherwise. For one you made quite a production about my bad Christianity judging Mormons for having their own sacred texts while orthodox Christian religions have many versions of the same Bible. I think I just made my point there Brad. Normative Christian texts like the King James Bible may be variations of the exact same things while sacred Mormon texts are completely different works authored by "prophets" in modern times. Hmmm, doesn't ring a bell with any of the apostolic gospels to me Brad. I mean look at photograph at the top of this article. "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" has no place in orthodox Christian thought. There is only one testament in what we anti-Mormons call true Christianity and it is called the Holy Bible. Attack its variations if you will but understand we didn't take it upon ourselves to compose texts for a specific sect and have the audacity to call these "additions" Holy more than 1700 years after the deaths of Christ's apostles.

Brad, us dumb old orthodox Christians require just a couple of things to make salvation a reality. You can mostly jiggle it down to faith in Christ as your Lord and Savior and repentance. This is the extremely short version, I simply have too much to cover. Part of the requirement of making any religion accessible for a defense revolves around asking the question can you make the Holy texts fit into some type of historical apostolic context. In other words can we make the Bible fit the times and events of when it was written in context of the overall Christian philosophy. Score that argument as Christians 1, Mormons 0.

How can you call yourself Christian when your "religion" completely endorses modern day prophets or "apostles" and believe their words as Holy prophecy which by any interpretation stretches beyond the bounds of traditional Christian thought? Do we bigoted mainstream Christians reject the Holy Trinity or believe that the Holy Bible is corrupted through a loss of purity? Do we believe that the Holy Scriptual Canon was left open to interpretation of modern day prophets? I've checked my history Brad now you check yours. Ask a Mormon bishop if those outside of Mormonism are Christians. You will find that anyone claiming to be Christian outside the Mormon faith is considered by Mormons to be apostate and known in derogatory terms as Gentiles.

As far as history lessons go Brad you better dig into this issue a little deeper. Check into the validity of Joseph Smith's claims and literature because if Mormons are claiming those texts are Holy they better fit into some type of arguable historical context for the basic sake of validity. Did he copy nearly word for word in the Book of Mormon from previously published texts? Did Smith fraudulently make a boo-boo on the Egyptian funerary documents that were later hidden and translated as funeral rites and not the sacred texts of Abraham like Smith contended? I could go on and on but I'm tired of beating this Mormon argument to death. Is there anthropologic or archaelogic evidence to support the Mormon claim of their life in the "ancient" Americas? No, no, and no again. Mormonism is a choice, a religion, but not a Christian one. I'm not advocating harm or violence or even loud public degradations. Just don't belittle me for trying to convince you and Mormons in general that my views on normative Christianity will get us to heaven while the Mormon way won't. Believe me, they believe the same. You can't just lump your philosophy and force yourself to be included with others just because you accuse others of being bigoted if they refuse or disagree with your advances. Wise up and make sense man. Don't waste time with illogical justifications. It doesn't further the larger argument. I do appreciate the fact that you didn't ask me to go digging through Mormon doctrine for you. Whenever someone tries to discuss their opposition to Mormonism, the Mormons usually say something like "just read our doctrine." What difference does that make? It might make it true to you but serves as concrete proof to me that the whole foundation in that religion is an aberration. It's like saying black is blue and red is green because somebody wrote it on paper and said "accept this as fundamental reality." It doesn't hold water friend.