Green$ Aren't Always Good For You

Gosh, it's been such a busy week that I've hardly had time to contemplate the fact that we're in the midst of a climate crisis. Such are the perils of living in this little corner of the universe we like to call Reality. 

But it's important for those of us in the business of climate panic reversal to be vigilant and keep getting the message out to those who still think all the hoopla is about recycling and better air. 

OK, it's about recycling, all right. Recycling communism, that is. Your green friends like Prince Albert the Nonsensical want a centralized power to take over the U.S. economy. If that fails, they'll settle for hyper-regulatory measures that choke the economy quickly too. 

Arclightzero kicked the week off with this post about just how much money Gore stands to get his fat fingers on if  politicians finally capitulate to his wailing. Sorry, Greenpeaceniks, Saint Albert isn't in it for sake of the planet. 

More news about what really lies in store for us if Washington sells us out to any Kyoto-like deal showed up this week. 

China is about to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest carbon emitter. Despite the fact that everything but Angelina Jolie's kids were made there it's still considered a developing country. Sure, there's lots of manufacturing and a big army but the farmers still use oxen. Another shining example of communism working for the common man. Should China remain communist, it will probably be "developing" well past Al Gore's projected planetary doomsday. Don't expect a run on HDTVs in rural China any time soon. 

What's the main difference between the two "carbon superpowers"? Simple, climate treaties make U.S. standards mandatory while that poor little developing whelp China gets to have voluntary goals. It's only fair to give the poor guys some time to catch up, right? 

Would that it were all so feel-good but, as with everything Green, it's not.

Reuters reports today that a "senior climate official" in China doesn't think that his exploding economy can foot the bill to become more carbon efficient. China can't even begin exploring options without "funding assurances," according to the official. 

Welcome to the nitty-gritty. If the world is going to take care of this carbon bogeyman, somebody has to pay for it. 

Any volunteers? Iceland? Mozambique? Portugal? Didn't think so. 

Another Reuters article earlier in the week reported that "Brazil wants rich nations at the Bali conference to pay for poor countries to adapt to climate change." 

The Chinese official wrapped things up by saying "Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need." (italics mine)

Hint: "rich nations" and "developed countries" are code for "mostly the United States". 

This is what all the Gorecrap is about: centralizing power at the UN and a redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Al Gore is trying to accomplish what generations of Cold War Soviet premiers couldn't: the spread of communism to all nations. 

And people think I call the greenies Climate Commies just to be snarky. If Karl Marx had an afterlife to go to he'd be beaming with pride at the accomplishments of his little green disciples. 

It bears repeating that the last successful financial venture the UN engaged in was an illegal and immoral one with Saddam Hussein. 

You might want to think twice about letting them spend the United States economy into the ground. 

At least we'll be able to import oxen for our farm work after we help China become developed. 

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Pelosi's Not-So-T.G.I.F.

Hot on the heels of a Gallup poll that says Republicans enjoy better mental health than Democrats comes the news that Rep. John Murtha (D-Occasionally Seditious) has said something remarkably sensible. Add in the rain here in southern California (more proof of global warming, no doubt) and we've got quite a wacky start to the weekend.  

I don't know whether Speaker Pelosi (D-Low Approval) is still in Washington or home for the holidays already. I do know, however, that there's a good chance she began drinking heavily as soon as her screams subsided upon hearing Murtha say "I think the surge is working." 

Face it, the one thing that Democrats don't want under their "Holiday Trees" this year is news from Iraq that victory and peace are possible. Look for various nutroot groups to start pressuring Nancy Pants to censure Murtha for his remarks. 

Within hours, Murtha moved to offset his honesty and candor with a statement of carefully prepared backtracking so loaded with b.s. head cold sufferers across America could smell it. 

Murtha contorts himself so much through various quotes that you almost forget he's fat. 

"...the surge is working for a couple of different reasons. And one reason is the increase in troops." 

So...sending more troops in is working because we sent more troops in, right?

"One of the reasons Alex Rodriguez's home run totals are so high is that he hits a lot of home runs."

Yes, these are the people that you're letting spend your money. If your neighbor said something that stupid you wouldn't let him borrow your weed whacker.

Murtha goes on to say that the war "can't be won militarily." So, John, it works better when there's more military there but we can't win it with the military? The alternative to winning a war militarily is..."Rock, Paper, Scissors"? "Tag"? "Gin Rummy"? Help me, Congressman.

Full disclosure: I am not one of the Republicans who enjoys greater mental health than the average Democrat (ask my mom) and I still wouldn't vote for a blithering basket case like Murtha.  

Those of you who keep doing so should probably read up on the harmful side effects of sniffing glue.

Cirque du CNN

So, CNN hooked up with YouTube to blindside the Republican candidates with a truckload of biased, juvenile drivel. Gosh, who would have seen that coming?

By now we all know about the gay general who trotted out a question from the 1992 primaries and was "outed" as a Clinton staffer. CNN apparently employed "don't ask, don't tell" when vetting the questioners. Michelle Malkin unearths more suspicious questioners today because, unlike the MSM, she smelled a rat as soon as Brig. Gen. Undecided was revealed. The MSM, for the most part, ignored the story altogether or were satisfied with believing the retired general to be an aberration. Gee golly, if you can't trust CNN who can you...

Anyway...

The Republicans walked right into this one. Why? Because they collectively possess some male anatomy associated with risk taking that the Democrats don't. A CNN/YouTube pairing had far more potential ticking bombs for the GOP candidates than did the Fox News debate that the Democrats gathered up their skirts and ran away from.

Madame Clinton spent the days leading up to the Democrat debate on CNN teaching Wolf Blitzer how to fetch and heel. Only when she was sure that he was under control and wouldn't embarrass her did she relax and proceed. CNN's biggest error of omission that night was having James Carville doing post debate analysis for them. The nutroots over at The Daily Kos were on suicide watch for the next few days because Carville didn't state up front that he was a Clinton staffer (Ms. Clinton is a bit conservative for the Kosmonauts). Is there anyone in America with an IQ over fourteen who doesn't know Carville works for the Clintons? As secrets go, this ranks right up there with OJ being a murderer. Face it, every CNN employee is a de facto Clinton staffer.

I am only surprised because others are surprised by this. It's sort of like going to a Jackie Chan movie and being disappointed by the acting. The powers that be at CNN wouldn't pass an objectivity test even if we graded them on a public school curve. The only reason it even calls itself CNN any more is because "American Al-Jazeera" takes up too much space on the graphics at the bottom of the screen.

The Republicans aren't going to get a fair shake from CNN, The New York Times or Hollywood. It's that simple. I was actually shocked at the relative softball nature of the biased questions. I fully expected this one to start with a video of some of the children weeping and asking how many puppies each candidate planned to kill with his big carbon footprint if elected. Instead, they attempted to highlight the difficulties that gays in the military face using a gay man who made it all the way to Brigadier General. That just made the policy seem like "Don't ask, don't tell, give me a helluva pension!"

The bias will continue unabated. A debate recap in the New York Times bemoaned "the lack of diversity on the stage..." and whined that "Most of the videos were from white men..." See how it works kids? The Democrats are suddenly representative of America because they have one African-American and four boobs (Hillary's two plus Kucinich and Dodd) running.

The fault lies more with us rolling over and allowing these sham debates that have more audience plants than a TV evangelist trying to raise money for a new Learjet. Each format revision seems to suck more than the last. Serious followers of politics on both sides should get angry and protest (we could call ourselves "youths") until some candidates agree to air it out for real.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

"Don't you people have homes?"

Connoisseurs of American cinema will recognize the title of this post from what is perhaps the greatest movie of all time, Caddyshack. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm going to write now, I just wanted to demonstrate that I have some class.

A little story that got buried over at FoxNews.com and was almost impossible to find on the other major news sites caught my eye today. It seems the Soviet Socialist City of Berkeley has decided to crack down on all sorts of embarrassing sidewalk behavior by its citizens. The ruling politburo there has developed a plan that "cracks down on yelling, littering, camping, drunkenness, smoking, urinating and sex on sidewalks and in parks." (italics mine)

Granted, there are few things more annoying than tripping over a gaggle of humping couples while walking to Starbucks in the morning.

 

"How did you sprain your ankle?"

"I saw a friend of mine down the street, got distracted and accidentally stepped on a threesome. Between that and the peeing campers, honestly..."

What's that, you say? You don't have a problem with people screwing, camping and using your sidewalks as lavatories? That's because you probably live in a sane, rational city that is not only geographically located within the United States but governs itself as such. Berkeley, of course, fancies itself a sort of 50's-era Moscow. 

There are a few enlightened liberal cities like Berkeley sprinkled throughout America that want to be benevolent socialist nannies to homeless people. For example, Berkeley has about 7 per cent of its county's total population but is "home" to around 40 per cent of the county's homeless. Government funded programs provide some food, a little shelter and maybe some basic medical care. What most of them are short on are the two things that homeless people need the most: jobs and homes.

Berkeley is basically saying "We'll open our arms to you but you're too icky to hug." It's practically given a personal invitation to each homeless person in America to move in and now it's annoyed that they're hanging around all the time.

 

"We weren't aware that they would be here all day and all night. We thought they might just grab some soup then go off to the homeless place and do homeless stuff. It's so difficult being compassionate when your sidewalk smells like wee-wee."

What's Berkeley's plan then? More feel-good socialism, naturally. The sidewalk shenanigans law will go into effect but the city will build more toilets and have an army of social workers roaming the streets. At least the toilets will give the homeless some place to hide from the social workers.

 

At the end of the day, the homeless of Berkeley will still be homeless, with very dim prospects. They will, however, be just a bit harder to see which will enable the other residents of the city get back to the business of feeling good about all they're doing to help the homeless.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!) 

The "Youth" Movement

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what might be the price of one of those words? To an apologist for the more violent aspects of Islam, "youth" is worth millions in whatever currency has the best exchange rate at the time.

Michelle Malkin helped kick off the busy blogging on the "youth" subject today in this post. The subject was also discussed at length by Mark Steyn in his brilliant book America Alone. Why am I discussing it then? Mostly because I'm an egomaniac and really enjoy reading my take on things. It's honesty like that which keeps me out of politics.

Urban riots most often break along racial and ethnic lines while others are driven by political ideology. A small percentage are confined to soccer games. Believe me, alcohol and low scoring sporting events are more volatile than a Molotov cocktail. When you've just finished your twelfth pint and it's nil-nil with 45 seconds left in the game punching the guy next to you seems very reasonable.

The point is, one can usually define a group of rioters by something that binds them deeply together like race, ethnicity or a lack of exposure to the NFL.

Then, in 2005, some rioting broke out in France and the only demographic anybody seemed to have available to describe the rioters was age. Not even specific ages like "teenagers" or "twenty-somethings". All we were offered was the extraordinarily vague "youths". The word was so milquetoast that at first one couldn't be sure if these "youths" wanted to harm someone or simply slow the MySpace servers down. Whatever could be making these "youths" band together and go apeshit?

Upon closer inspection, it turned out that the "youths" in France had something in common other than being kinda sorta the same age. They were primarily Muslim "youths" and, as such, adherents of Islam.

There's rioting anew in France this week and once again it seems it's those impish "youths" who are to blame.

So why can't we just refer to people who are angry, young and Muslim as "angry young Muslims"? Because that would make us insensitive, boorish right-wing boobs.

Remember the "Chechen rebels" who killed hundreds of school children in Beslan, Russia in 2004? We weren't supposed to mention that they were Muslim either. Hmm...

It's kind of like calling the pope a "a cassock-draped elderly resident of Italy" instead of Catholic if he does something controversial.

People on the left desperately want to believe that Al Gore is right about fearing climate change but George Bush is just making all this terrorist stuff up to scare us. So a couple of computer projections become a "climate crisis" and a "planet in peril" but the angry young Muslims flinging the aforementioned Molotov cocktails around are merely "youths". Angry "youths" in one place are difficult to associate with Chechen "rebels" in another. The lefties are probably kicking themselves for letting al Qaeda's Muslim connection be known in the first place. "Occasionally bearded sometime aviation students" just wasn't catchy enough in the dark days after Sept. 11th, I guess. If we begin noticing a Muslim theme in a variety of violent episodes we might have to conclude that it's not all a figment of the administration's imagination.

I say "toh-may-toh" and you say "toh-mah-toh", right?

These "youths" are going to have to do something real awful like not recycling before the American liberals worry about them.

Teddy Tells All

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Cirrhosis) has just signed a book deal to write an in-depth exploration of chronic alcohol abuse and memory loss which he will no doubt refer to as an "autobiography". The senior senator from Massachusetts is best known for having been in the middle of a blackout for approximately 98% of his time in the senate. He is currently the second longest serving U.S. Senator, eclipsed only by West Virginia's Robert Byrd (D-KKK). 

The deal is rumored to be a substantial sum for a political memoir. A large portion of the money is expected to help lure a veteran collaborator who can find enough variations on "Woke up, grabbed some scotch, tried to screw up the country..." to make a full length book. 

Throughout his decades of public drunkenness service, Kennedy has often been controversial and sometimes thought-provoking. The thought most often provoked is "What in the hell are the people of Massachusetts thinking?" He was a key figure in the attempted lynching confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Kennedy was opposed on the grounds that even alleged sexual harassment was considered to be a senatorial perk and not to be practiced by anyone else. 

When not dozing off during committee hearings, Kennedy likes to occasionally move his head from side-to-side, leave his recliner for trips to the wet bar and drive off bridges.  

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell

Thank God He Was Only Visiting

The two most polarizing figures in American politics got together for a chat in the Oval Office today and, no, one of them wasn't Senator Pantsuit. Prince Albert the Hysterical took his Nobel B.S. Prize to the White House today for a "Can't You Just Feel The Love?" luncheon at the invitation of President Bush. I have a lot of ambivalence about some of the things that President Bush has done but I will say that he's far more gracious than I.

Gore has spent the time since he LOST running around claiming that he didn't, bad-mouthing the president whenever he had the chance and reinventing himself as a shameless pimp for a new brand of global communism. He got an Oscar and a Nobel for making up a slide show full of doctored facts, wild speculation and outright lies. In fairness to Gore, he did begin the slide show by saying "My name is Al Gore..." which was the most easily verified fact in the thing. It all got a little sketchy after that.

The left just loves to disparage President Bush's academic achievements, intelligence and speaking style but few in history have done so much with so little as Gore. His own speaking style is reminiscent of an alcoholic who gets to the bar shortly after breakfast each morning. I have no idea if Gore drinks or not (we know he eats) but he slurs his words so much that I'm always waiting for someone to emerge from the background with a breathalyzer. I think that's how he's slipping all the commie mumbo-jumbo past everyone.

"What did he just say?"

"I have no idea but he's been to the Academy Awards and met Joan Rivers and everything!"

Gore's biggest achievement to date has been demonstrating to the youth of America that any kid who can learn Power Point has a real shot at becoming a Nobel Laureate.

"And here is a photo of some ice melting in the scotch on my private jet. Someday kids, there will be so much melting ice that we'll all die. The only way to prevent that is if we all die. Makes sense, doesn't it?"

"But Mr. Gore, doesn't your limousine harm the environment?"

"I'm glad you asked that...as you know, Timmy, when I first invented the internal combustion engine I had no idea that the House of Saud would one day...um...isn't this Nobel medal shiny?"

Again, there is quite a laundry list that I could take this administration to task for (immigration, spending, not realizing until recently that maybe more troops would help in Iraq) but I have to breathe a sigh of relief that Al Gore wasn't installing solar panels on the West Wing when all the terrorist crap started happening. It's just better to have the adults in charge in times of crisis, I think.

"I understand that Osama bin Laden is behind this. Yes, it's true that the exploding jet fuel and collapsing buildings have had a negative effect on the environment in lower Manhattan. Mr. bin Laden does, however, live in a cave so his carbon footprint is still something to be admired. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to reach out to President Chirac and see if there might be a bribe or two he missed at the UN."

Irony of ironies: the people who love to say George W. Bush is an idiot think this guy is a genius. Talk about a sliding scale! (They must be using NEA-approved public school standards to judge Gore.)

It was funny earlier this year when people were speculating as to whether Gore would run. Why would he? He's gotten international acclaim for eating free food and making stuff up. He burns through more fossil fuel in a week than your family will in its history and he's revered as the god of all things environmental. It's a sweet gig. Hope he keeps it. Those photos of him in the Oval Office were scarier than any horror flick I've seen.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell

But did they get free health care?

This is a quick follow-up to something discussed here and elsewhere last week about a possible border breach by Islamic terrorists. A Washington Times article today goes into more detail about the attempted attack on Ft. Huachuca in southern Arizona.

If anyone in the northeast can be bothered to take a break from shopping for carbon credits to give as Winter Solstice gifts, I'm sure they'd react something along the lines of this:

"Islamic terrorists sneaking across the Mexican border to do bad things? That's just whacky right wing propaganda. It's impossible for someone who isn't good and honorable to illegally enter the country because 'there are no illegal people'! Wait, we have a border with Mexico?"

Heads up, people. The immigration debate is about more than keeping the price of lettuce affordable. Poor people in Mexico aren't the only ones that have noticed that the border is porous. Just guessing here, I bet it's hard to enjoy a salad full of reasonably priced produce if the restaurant you're sitting in gets blown up.

Hey, if liberals can speculate that the glaciers are going to drown us when they melt based on computer models I can speculate that terrorists might blow Americans up based on the fact that they already have.

What Fred Said

There was a time, long before things like September 11th, climate hysteria and Hillary Clinton's disturbing pant suits of androgyny when I wouldn't seriously listen to a presidential candidate who didn't talk about overhauling the tax code. (Can I get a little Jack Kemp "Amen!" in here?)

Republican candidates have, at best, been paying a small amount of lip service to taxes in recent years. Republican candidates have also gotten their heads handed to them in recent elections. Blame the war all you want but, as I've said before, the party lost last year because it didn't pay enough attention to taxes and fiscal responsibility.

The sad thing for Republicans thus far in this race is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who has tried to address taxes. Even the Village Idiot can have a few lucid moments but when they're sandwiched between all the crazy talk they are hard to listen to. His army of flying cyberspam monkeys have helped Paul morph into the Dennis Kucinich of the right. All we can do is stare at them, wonder how they got here and hope that the mother ship returns for them soon.

Until this week, Fred Thompson has looked like he's running to be nominated by the Apathetic American party. When I've had trouble sleeping all I had to do was watch Thompson on TV and I'd be out like Keith Richards after a night in a hot tub filled with Jack Daniels.

Fred finally decided to start speaking in specific terms this week and he started with a proposal about taxes that he trotted out on Fox News Sunday. It's a hybrid system that would allow people to free themselves and file using a flat rate. Those who are enamored of the current oppressive system (Democrats and the clinically insane) can continue to file that way.

Thompson is the opposite of most of the other candidates (on either side) in that he is better speaking in detail than he is blathering on about broad generalities. To date we've had the GOP candidates vaguely discussing saving us from evil and the Democrats promising everything but free puppies to every American who isn't part of "The Rich". Of course, I'm dismissing the absurd detail that Rudy Giuliani (R-9/11) goes into by narrowing his record down to one day in history. This proposal, coupled with his emphasis on Rudy's awful gun rights record could be the beginning of a sort of second entry into the race for Thompson.

All I want for Christmas is a GOP candidate I can get excited about again. One who will send both Rudy and Hillary back to New York for good. Let's get Freddy a couple shots of espresso and see if he can do the trick.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Politburo Weekend

Seeking to enjoy a stress-free and peaceful holiday, I minimized the time I usually spend reading the lefty blogs this past week. I did, however, promise myself that I would monitor and mouth-off about said blogs with some frequency so...here's a quickie weekend glance at what the communists progressives were getting their knickers in a twist about.

Honestly, I was a little curious to see what such a large collection of inveterate bashers of the United States would have to be thankful for so I did peek at what Kos had to say on Thanksgiving. His imagination and wit have an inversely proportionate relationship to his growing acclaim. He used to be good for a few zingers that were, at the very least, fun to dissect and respond to. In his Thanksgiving post he merely proceeds from boring to bitchy.

A guy named Duke1676 attempts to air quote his way out of the left position on illegal immigration in this post. The immigrants are no longer undocumented in this "There are no illegal people..." story, they've become unauthorized. Perhaps the right should develop a fetish for the "un" prefix as well and begin referring to illegals as unstoppable. It's full of pedestrian left wing, um, logic that claims that there is no crisis and that real concerns are nothing more than talking points. He babbles on for what seems like days to come to his point that we simply don't approve enough visas for unskilled laborers.

Just one of the elephants in the room that Duke dances around is the question of whether we need to approve many at all since, by most counts, there are 12 million of the unwhateveryouwantocallthems already living here and handling a lot of the unskilled labor. The problem isn't our immigration policy. It is, and always has been, the fact that Mexico doesn't have anything resembling a middle class. The rest of the world does absolutely nothing to pressure it while the leftnuts here want an insane redistribution of wealth to accommodate the steady flow of impoverished Mexicans into the U.S. We're not supposed to be the world's cop but the left wants us to be the world's sugar daddy.

Duke1676 does provide some humor if you check out the other blog he posts to. The posts rail against the right wing and it's got a blog roll that would make Hugo Chavez look right of center yet its "About" section claims that the site is "nonpartisan". They probably meant "non-Parisian" since very little French appears on the site. Easy mistake.

There's a big philosophical post at TDK today titled "Why Are We Here?" It proceeds from the "evolution as fact" point of view so the first thing you have to do is get a huge grain of salt to take with the rest of it. Claiming that Darwinian theory, as yet not backed by the fossil record, reasonable computer models or even four out of five dentists, has "wrung the Genesis out of human origins..."

I'm not exactly an either/or guy on this so I would ask that any lefties who happen to be reading spare me the religious zealot epithets.

As usual, whenever a discussion about how precise everything had to be seconds after the Big Bang for us to get to this point one is left with a few ways to consider how it all fell into place. Ironically, proponents of evolution like to take a leap of faith. They do worship a god over there, it's called "Coincidence". Or you can believe that something may have been directing the whole thing. They're asking you to believe that, if you take a bunch of actors with no script or director and sit them in a room, "The Godfather" will eventually happen.

I believe in coincidence like I believe in the lottery as a retirement plan.

Despite its condescension ("...if you failed to make it to the back cover of A Brief History of Time, think twice about diving in here..."), the post is worth plowing through. It is one of those rare TDK postings that at least tries to discuss something rather than simply type out a temper tantrum.

Naturally, they're happy about the Labor win in Australia but unhappy about the French rail workers having to do their jobs. Pro labor as long as nobody has to work too hard.

That's how the nutroots roll.

"As long as we don't have to live with them..."

Behold the modern Democratic party: among its elder statesman are a guy who let his mistress drown while saving himself and a former high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan. The party continues its codependent love affair with its most popular recent president, who is also a chronic sexual predator. Howard Dean proved himself to be too psychotic to be the party's nominee in 2004 but they rewarded him with the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. Oh, the current front runner for the 2008 Democratic ticket, who also happens to be the chief enabler of the aforementioned sexual predator, has received the endorsement of OJ Simpson.

All in all, it's quite a party, don't you think?

Now we have some new evidence that the party whose very existence depends on frightening voters with class warfare rhetoric is, in fact, the party of the rich.

A new study has found that congressional Democrats represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest districts. It would also appear that there is a close correlation between the number of wealthy households in a district and the likelihood of a Democrat being elected there.

The Democrats often blather on about "two Americas" when campaigning. What they don't mention is that they discovered the disparity when they accidentally peeked out the limo window and saw some of their kitchen staff getting on a bus one day.

"If elected, I promise to fight for the poor and disenfranchised, just as soon as they bring me some foie gras and brandy!"

This explains so much about the current Democratic mindset.

First, their fervor for giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens may just be a money-saving move that enables them to avoid paying fair market wages to a chauffeur. "Flavio is simply doing the driving that my American chauffeur didn't want to do."

It also clears up why the alleged anti-war party has been waging war on the American taxpayer for decades. It's easy to keep up a financial assault on the middle class if you don't have to actually interact with any middle class Americans. "I know all about the plight of the middle class and I'm going to vote myself a taxpayer funded raise so I can form a committee to study the problem and decide what to do about it. First, I have to fire the landscaping staff for the shoddy job they did on the azaleas around the gazebo at my summer home."

The amazing thing is that Democratic candidates keep straight faces when spewing their class warfare crap. John "Fluffy" Edwards (D-Chasing Ambulances) has built his entire campaign around fighting for the poor. When did he amp up this rhetoric? After he was caught paying $400 for a haircut. Edwards probably knows as much about "the poor" as a Cuban kid knows about the "freedom to emigrate".

Edwards' partner on the 2004 ticket, John Kerry, went on and on about the hard working, "shrinking" middle class in his acceptance speech. The only workable plan for helping the middle class that Kerry ever put forth involved conning rich women into marrying him. He is no more likely to feel the financial pain of the middle class than he is to feel the pain of menstrual cramps.

Lastly, this news helps inform us as to why this progressive Democratic party fights so hard to regress to its 20th century roots on everything from politically dooming our soldiers like they did in Viet Nam to making sure Social Security remains as it was in the 1930's. They seek to go back to a time when, however misguided, their actions were more in tune with their ideals. It must be difficult reconciling being a party of privilege with pretending to bond with the common man.

"Of course I understand the struggles of common Americans. Just last week I had to yell at my maid for bringing me the wrong gold watch. It was the third time she's done it this year. If she does it again I've threatened to send her on a date with Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton at the same time. You can stop the foot massage now, Raul."

I don't need politicians who want to feel my pain, I just want them to stop causing it.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Dear Hillobamaedwards: Socialism Still Sucks

American politics has taken some weird turns in the past several years. The two dominant parties, once defined by clear core principles, have now become defined by their reigning personalities. Whenever it gets brought up around my oh-so-tolerant entertainment industry colleagues that I'm a Republican the first thing I usually hear is, "So you like George Bush?!?" As if that's all that being a Republican is about.

By my non-scientific method of calculation, one out of about every fifty liberals actually believes in the First Amendment and will engage me in a reasonable, adult political discussion. The rest tend to be of the "Bush lied, people died!" toddler thinking variety. As long as they can finish a sentence with "...for the children," they fancy themselves intellectuals.

When I do meet the reasonable people, it reminds me of why I used to enjoy politics so much. We get to discuss why we believe what we believe. I have an overriding belief about the role of government which has guided my voting choices since I was young. This belief will keep me from ever being a Democrat but it's also made me disillusioned with many post-1994 Republican leaders. Here it is:

Even if I believed that the federal government should be involved in curing social ills (which I don't), I don't believe it can.

Here's something I remember my very Republican mother telling me when I was young regarding the government and its funding of various things: "There is no such thing as 'the government'. It's our money."

She's right, of course. Unless the government extorts money from its citizenry, it can't scrape together enough to buy a Happy Meal, let alone pay for every kid in America to go to college (Shout out to Fluffy Edwards!).

While most on the left view the government as a benevolent cash-spewing angel here to right every wrong, I tend to see it as a bloated, inefficient monster that screws up everything it touches.

My image of it is something like this: every tax dollar that's sent to Washington to help someone gets touched by so many filthy hands that it becomes disease ridden and shrinks down to about a dime by the time it gets back to do all that helping.

I don't blame Republicans or Democrats for this, I blame the nature of bureaucracy itself. Like a marathon runner who keeps putting on fat, the larger a centralized government grows, the more impossible it becomes to achieve its initial goals. The Catch-22 with a centralized power structure is this: it can't possibly achieve all of its goals unless it grows larger.

Thomas Jefferson, a quotable fave for the Democrats when speaking about organized religion, said this about federal "helping": "I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." (Italics mine)

A rather curious sentiment for the man most Democrats view as their ideological father, wouldn't you say?

Now, let us imagine a group of bloated, centralized and hyperactive governments getting together to form an even bigger bloated, centralized and hyperactive government. You're right, we don't need to imagine, the European Union is already here. Today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page has this concise piece about what happens when this kind of bureaucratic circle-jerk breaks out. It's a nice little holiday story about fraudulent accounting, incompetence and wasteful spending.

In short, it's everything I expect from "a very energetic government" and the people who would run it.

Naturally, if you say that "the government" shouldn't attempt to right a wrong, you're told by the modern American liberal that you're personally against righting wrongs. I say the government doesn't do a good job with public schools so I'm told that I'm against education.

Nope. I'm against a bloated federal government giving me a financial colonoscopy every April for its own amusement. Always have been. Always will be. Don't care who the president is.

Sorry about all this serious adult stuff, I'll get back to being infantile as soon as I can.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote!)

Little Harry Climbs The Monkey Bars

Desperate to accomplish something before Toto pulled the curtain back and exposed him, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Sourpuss) finally scored a victory. The Dems are angry that President Bush has used recess appointments to circumvent their chronic obstructionism. Most of their pique has to do with the fact that recess appointments illustrate that it's easier to move the country forward when the senators are home getting spa treatments. One could almost make the case for an amendment requiring them to be on vacation all year. I'm sure they'd get used to an extra three weeks off.

It's important to note that, with the Senate floor all to themselves (himself, actually, since Jim Webb (D-Boorish) was the only senator there), the Democrats skipped the prayer and the Pledge.

No prayer, no Pledge of Allegiance, no chance for anyone to speak up against them...that's like a trip to Disneyland for this Democratic majority.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

I hate it when you guys fight...

I just spent a day exiled from cyberspace with modem problems. Time-Warner never satisfactorily explained what the hell happened but I'm blaming the Ron Paul (R-But We Don't Claim Him) supporters.

I get lonely without me so I thought it would be best all around if I at least commented on some of the things I read upon my return to carpal tunnel pain tonight.

First, I happened upon Hillary's dig on Obie and his claim that living abroad when he was a kid has helped prepare him to make foreign policy decisions. "Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face," said the Missus.

Of all the inane lightweight revelations offered by Obama this may be the most outlandish. He really needs to learn to shut up for another election cycle or two. "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia," Obie said on Monday. Using the same logic, "Nailed a Canadian chick..." would look good on an application to the State Dept.

Mrs. Clinton followed up her remark by saying, "I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in." Then she stopped talking and didn't suggest anyone so that wasn't any help at all.

I do believe that it's time for her ladyship to stop acting like a grizzled veteran. She's been a carpetbagging senator for seven years, one of which was spent ignoring her duties and running for president. Prior to that, her greatest political experience consisted of not having sex for eight years with the then president. The question is whether her "domestic non-relations" trump Obama's "foreign relations". I think they cancel each other out.

And that's exactly what I hope these two keep doing to each other.

Next, I had to marvel at the way Rosie O'Donnell can be so easy to dislike even while doing good. She raises money for her kids charity and does some fantastic work with that then blurts out things like "George Bush is a war criminal," while in the midst of it all.

Every time Ms. O opens her mouth the phrase "acting out" pops into my head. Even MSNBC found her idiocy to be off-putting. They thought that she was too insane to put on the air after Keith Olbermann. It takes being a special kind of unbalanced to appear ridiculous after Keith has just held the airwaves hostage with that bad Edward R. Murrow one man show/sex fantasy of his.

I often wonder what these people will do after the next election. They have nothing to say beyond their variations of "I don't like George W. Bush!" Well, Olbermann will still have O'Reilly to whine about as long as the latter keeps burying him in the ratings, which will be for the rest of his career.

Rosie, I worry about. She's got a lot of stuff that is obviously not being worked out quickly enough in therapy and she just might snap. The bio page on her site mentions "love," "light" and "peace". Let's hope that she can find another politician she can focus her hatred on so she doesn't get distracted from spreading those ideals.

Group hug.

Psychos Without Borders

First, an item of interest that I found yesterday at one of my favorite watering holes, Miss Beth's Victory Dance. It's been making the rounds on the conservative blogs but it bears repeating for a couple of reasons.

The most important reason is that I don't think most people on the left understand that border security and national security are linked. If we get upset about lax immigration enforcement we're labeled xenophobic loons who want to damn the poor people of Mexico to eternal struggle. Like the chance that Rosie O'Donnell will say something stupid again, the likelihood that terrorists will cross our southern border is fairly great. All I'm saying is this: if we can demand panic because the computers say that we might have some problems with climate in the future maybe we can be just a little concerned about the threat of avowed enemies availing themselves of our easy access policy.

I also bring the story up because I believe that people who don't live in California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas can't appreciate the problem unless we talk about it ad nauseam. When you're sipping tea in Connecticut and your greatest border fear is that a New Yorker who makes less than $200 thousand a year will sneak across and try to stay at one of your B&B's all of the talk seems silly.

Let us move on to the main point today. The two-headed dictator pig, Mahugo Ahmadinechavez, got together in Tehran for some good ol' hatin' on the U.S.A.

As you wade through the tons of verbal fertilizer being spread by the Democratic presidential hopefuls you will, no doubt, hear a lot of talk about, well, talking. According to the left, America's problems have nothing to do with a violent group of fanatics who have sworn to kill us and everything to do with that fact that we don't reach out enough.

Lefty Assumption Disclaimer: I'm not at all against diplomacy. I just think it works better when both parties are interested in it and I'm not getting that vibe from Mahmoud and Hugo.

"Here are two brother countries, united like a single fist," said the cuddly Venezuelan dictator. That was followed up with "God willing, with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. imperialism will fall as soon as possible too," and "The U.S. empire is coming down..."

Admittedly, I got confused and thought I was reading the new Markos Moulitsas Newsweek column.

"We have common viewpoints and we will stand by each other until we capture the high peaks. God is with us and victory is awaiting us," was Ahmadinejad's diplomatic offering.

Doesn't everything about them just scream "Let's grab a latte and chat..."?

What gets lost in all the pathological equivocating on the left is the ability to admit that our enemies may have come to be so of their own volition. The lefties see conspiracies and evil everywhere they look on the American right but want to believe unhinged loons like Ahmadinejad and Chavez are basically good at heart. It's the "Aw, somebody needs a hug..." approach to international relations.

Settle down, liberals, I'm not advocating war. All I am saying is that it's time to stop deluding ourselves that world leaders who say things like, "The U.S. empire is coming down..." are ready to think outside the box and play nice. If you think all of this is going to change just by putting a Democrat in the White House then all I can do is say, "Have at it," and wish you good luck with that visit from the Great Pumpkin next Halloween.

I'd like to conclude by proposing that negotiations with Chavez and Ahmadinejad proceed only if King Juan Carlos is hosting them.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (vote for it!)

Eco-Stalin Army Acquires Weapons Of Mass Hysteria

In another attempt to finally become relevant, the United Nations has once again unleashed its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Communism (IPCC) on an unquestioning public. Get ready for all the Gorebots to ratchet up the Chicken Little dance again.

The IPCC is the main weapon for the Eco-Stalins. Its members somehow manage to keep straight faces while claiming that the scientific method, speculative projections and unquestioned claims of consensus can coexist logically. The main mission of the IPCC is to run a kazillion computer models about what might happen then choose the most extreme outcomes to focus on. They then distill all the data and put it in a report called The Summary Of Stuff You Don't Need To Take A Closer Look At (a.k.a. "The Summary for Policy Makers").

What follows each issuance of a report is this: The MSM jumps all over it, swoons like a teenage girl who has just been told she gets to spend the night with Justin Timberlake and tells the world that it will be ending soon if Mother UN isn't allowed to become a supranational nanny.

Emboldened by the fact that Nobel committee has no criteria whatsoever for awarding its prizes and has given it one, the IPCC just issued a report that is meant to induce War of the Worlds type hysteria.

Here are the "key findings" in the report. I'm not planning on waging the battle against Global Speculation all at once today. Plenty of my rantings on the subject can be found here, here and here. I'll go over just a few of my favorites. Any italics are mine.

Global warming is "unequivocal." Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Whoop-dee-la-dee-do. Yes, even right wing nuts like myself can acknowledge that the temperature has gone up. Just as it has in the past. It's where we proceed from that premise that is the cause for division.

Extreme weather conditions will be more common. This from the same people who promised us a plague of hurricanes immediately following Katrina. What ensued was one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record. If you need me, I'll be hanging out at the corner of Skeptical and Underwhelmed.

Even if greenhouse gases are stabilized, the Earth will keep warming and sea levels rising. More pollution could bring "abrupt and irreversible" changes. Or "Fixing it doesn't really fix it but if we don't fix it might be worse." Well, let's get right on that, then.

Human activity is largely responsible for warming. Global emissions of greenhouse gases grew 70 percent from 1970 to 2004. Yet 1934 is the hottest year on record. What kind of cars were they driving then? Here's the real dilemma: you can't accomplish much of what the Eco-Stalins want to accomplish without finding some way to cease all of that meddlesome "human activity."

A wide array of tools exist, or will soon be available, to adapt to climate change and reduce its potential effects. One is to put a price on carbon emissions. Ah, we've waded through the computer projected hysterical fluff and finally arrived at the heart of the mission. We start charging the developed countries for carbon emissions. It's working so well in Europe that the utility companies are becoming wealthier but the dreaded human activity continues unabated. Carbon emissions are up in most of Europe since signing on to Kyoto and people still seem to be driving, using lights and heat in their homes and going online to read about us bastards in the U.S. who won't take this crap seriously. New motto for the IPCC (paraphrasing John Candy in "Splash"): When something doesn't work for me, I stick with it. Hey kids, guess whose carbon emissions did drop last year? Anyone? That's right, the non-Kyoto heathens in the good old U.S. of A.

By 2050, stabilizing emissions would slow the average annual global economic growth by less than 0.12 percent. The longer action is delayed, the more it will cost. Tricky. Let's look at the impact on average global economic growth instead of the projected (since the Climate Commies are such fans of the speculation-as-gospel approach) impact on U.S. economic growth. I'm sure that the percentage growth reduction in poor countries balances that out quite nicely. Looks like the IPCC has brought David Blaine and Criss Angel on board.

There may be some very real consequences to climate change. That most of them are speculative but treated as fact is what should be of greatest concern. Can anyone say United Nations power grab?

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, is from India, which is a major carbon emitter. He's willing to lead a panel that advocates panic-filled solutions from which his country is exempt. The two largest carbon emitters are the U.S. and China. Recommendations to date have involved attempts to coerce the U.S. to legally bind itself to a potential economic disaster. China? Well, lets just ask them nicely to try. You know how responsive they are to what the world wants them to do.

Beware of anything that hints of international control over the U.S. economy. Beware of anyone who calls a prediction a fact.

Lastly, communism may continually fail in practice but in theory it continues to inspire ideologues who resent the United States. Since it can't stand on its merits it has to be repackaged. Peel back the layers covering the Global Warming hype. You can wrap a turd in scented paper but it's still a turd.

You have to wonder why the default position is to let the UN and the Kyoto-philes get their grubby little hands on our economy. We're resented for the wealth that a successful free market economy has created but the efficacy of a free market approach to mitigating climate change seems to be dismissed out of hand. Instead, bureaucratic approaches that have done little more than drive up energy prices in Europe without producing the desired effects are touted as the serious solution.

Pretty paper, but that turd still stinks.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Politburo Friday

(A quick once-over of the left of the left bloggers today)

Once again, the Democrats had their retro Viet Nam retreat party ruined by the lame duck. The score for your Democratic majority is now: Lame-Duck President-41 Majority Mandate Mavens: 0. Congress really should have a mercy rule.

Then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after years of pretending to be makers, rather than interpreters of the law, finally got one right.

Looks like it might have had the makings of a rough day for the lefty bloggers, don't you think?

Nah, tomorrow's Howard Dean's birthday, which is what TDKers celebrate instead of Christmas. So they're not too upset because they are busy firing up the bongs and giving shouts out to their emotional and ideological leader.

Hey, send a Xanax and Bourbon to the governor for me.

OK, they are actually going off on their pet court over there, which illustrates the ever-widening divide between right and left. True, the fact that the most dangerously rogue court in America would side with George W. Bush on a matter of national security is no less stunning on this side of the fence. I have a phenomenal imagination and I don't think I would have ever seen that coming. Still waiting for someone to wake me up...

However, we think it's a good sign that even some of the fringe can get the important things through their heads once in a while. The Extraterrestrial Left is up in arms about affronts to liberty and privacy rights, neither of which they would enjoy if the people we're going after were allowed to have their way. No doubt I'm a Kool-Aid drinking cretin for saying that enemies might act all enemy-ish if allowed to run roughshod. My favorite flavor is lime. Throw in some potato vodka for me, would you?

Calm down kiddies, I'm sure that the Ninth Circuit Court will get back to issuing keys to the U.S. Treasury to every illegal worker soon. Let them have their afternoon on the sane side of the street.

One post says that Wolf Blitzer is "hurting America" because he insisted on a yes or no answer. Frustration about the stupid questions and lame formats of the debates is all over the lefty blogs today. I won't pile on by letting them know they're agreeing with something Newt Gingrich has been saying for a long time. That, coupled with the Ninth Circuit Court acting all American for a day might make the poor dears faint.

My Through the Looking Glass moment came while reading blog after lefty blog complaining about the press and how awful the questioning at the debates has been. Ranting and raving about the fact that the MSM sucks...that's progressive. All I have to ask the Kosmonauts is, "Are there any other things we've been talking about on the right for thirty years that you'd like to borrow?"

One post fantasized about a panel of progressives staging a four hour debate between the eventual nominees. Why not have a panel of conservatives join in to truly test the candidates? Come on, ye lovers of all things ACLU, try sharing some of that First Amendment.

There is a lot of hatin' on James Carville going on with the Kosmonauts today and I'll admit that made it easier to hang around there longer.

Then I saw Al Gore referred to as a "visionary" and an "intellectual" in a post.

"Orderlies!"

The Fembot and the Fumbler

After two weeks of sadistically giving false hope to the likes of Bill Richardson (D-Invisible) and Chris Dodd (D-Why Am I Here?), Hillary Clinton (D-Testosterone) reclaimed her masculine side and restored order at the Democrat's debate. John Edwards (D-Up In Your Business) is once again the only woman making a historical bid for the presidency.

I've been trying not to pay attention to these things (either party's) because I never like the various formats. These debates are nothing more than amateur political porn, with each candidate trying to excite donors just enough to make them pay to see more.

Hillary did actually have a chick moment when she complained about being "personally attacked." Oh stop. I don't want a president who is going to stomp her feet and ride a wave of estrogen out of the room whenever someone says something she doesn't like. She sounds like an aggrieved crack addict mom on Jerry Springer when she whines like this.

The sharp contrast between her experience and Saint Obama's (D-Not Much There) lack thereof was shown when the illegal license lovefest was brought up again. Obama's problems inevitably arise when he ceases being the smiling guy on the magazine covers and becomes a three dimensional figure who has to say stuff. When the subject can be approached with vague, obvious generalities ("All children should be young and happy!"), Obie's quite the charmer. If specifics are involved, the saying of the stuff becomes a problem.

After attacking a wounded Future Madame President for two weeks about her licenses for illegals flip-flops one would have presumed that Obama would have thought through some coherent ideas of his own on the subject. Ah, but the conveying of the ideas requires the saying of the stuff.

The reason that Democrats have a hard time with the illegal immigration issue is that they're required by their handlers over at MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos to avoid the, well, illegality of it all. It's difficult to make a logical argument for or against anything when you have to pretend the very essence of the argument isn't there.

Here are some excerpts from the debate that illustrate how the Sainted One managed to undo whatever momentum he'd gotten going against The Pantsuit. We'll begin with Wolf Blitzer's question.

MR. BLITZER: All right. I want to just press you on this point because it's a logical follow-up, and then I want to go and ask everyone. On the issue that apparently tripped up Senator Clinton earlier, the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, I take it, Senator Obama, you support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Is that right?

SEN. OBAMA: When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. (Scattered applause.) That was my intention. And -- but I have to make sure that people understand the problem we have here is not drivers licenses. Undocumented workers don't come here to drive. (Laughter.) They don't go -- they're not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger. That's not the reason they're here. They're here to work. And so instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that --

MR. BLITZER: All right.

SEN. OBAMA: -- this administration, the Bush administration, has done nothing about.

Translation: "Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense...Bush's fault!"

In-N-Out Burger? You can almost imagine a voice in his head screaming "Why can't I just shut up-oh no-am I still talking? Please make it go away!"

It gets better. He should have asked for a blindfold and a firing squad at this point, it would have been more humane.

MR. BLITZER: Well, let's go through everybody because I want to be precise. I want to make sure the viewers and those of us who are here fully understand all of your positions on this.

Barring, avoiding, assuming there isn't going to be comprehensive immigration reform, do you support or oppose drivers licenses for illegal immigrants?

SEN. OBAMA: I am not proposing that that's what we do. What I'm saying is that we can't -- (interrupted by laughter). No, no, no, no, look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that drivers licenses at the state level can make that happen. But what I also --

MR. BLITZER: All right.

SEN. OBAMA: But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.

Translation: "I'm not saying that's what we should do but I've already said that's what we should do."

Who preps him for these things-Miss Teen South Carolina?

Blitzer then explains to them that this is a "yes" or "no" question and asks them to answer accordingly. Here's what happened when he got to Obie:

Senator Obama, yes or no?

SEN. OBAMA: Yes.

"He did it! Our little guy finally rode his bike without falling!"

His Blessedness was seemingly out of the woods. He'd given the one word answer required of him then shut up. Seconds later, as if allergic to shutting up, he started to say stuff again. He wants to be president but he can't grasp a complex notion like "yes or no question." The verbal diarrhea continued:

MR. BLITZER: Okay. (Applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, and we shouldn't pose the question that somehow we can't achieve that. I believe that the American people desperately want it. That's what I'm going to be fighting for as president.

MR. BLITZER: Senator Clinton?

SEN. CLINTON: No.

Game, set, pantsuit.

The main action happened between Hillary, St. Obama and Fluffy Edwards. The other guys were so removed that I kept expecting CNN to install a window on stage that they could stand behind and press their noses against to watch the actual candidates.

Mrs. Clinton, no doubt, probably went to sleep rather easily after this one. Sadly, Barack Obama is going to be awake for another day or two while he finishes explaining his one word answer.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Politburo Thursday: What the Kosmonauts are blogging in between bong hits.

(This is going to be a semi-regular-maybe daily-feature on this blog for now. Here is the first one of these I posted. It gives a little intro to the idea. SDK)

Proving once again that the Extraterrestrial Left (the "ELs") believes that freedom of speech applies only to the hysterically seditious, the Daily Che Guevara is whining about Don Imus being back on the air. Not only that, they also have their metrosexual man-panties in a wad over the fact that James Carville made an appearance on his show. Sure, they hate Republicans over there but they act like scorned lovers whenever a Democrat doesn't pee where they tell him to. Here's their little snippet about Jimmy C:

"Loyalty to friends is good. But Carville sure keeps finding his loyalty to his friends and his loyalty to what should be basic principles in conflict."

Principles. Carville. Somebody forgot to take her Compazine today!

The gals are also chirping about Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein not heeling when ordered to. Neither made a mess on the rug but they did vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. Expect an outcry over there soon to bring Cesar Milan in and train these bitches right.

There's even a cute little poll about the California Dems attempt to censure Feinstein. No need, kiddies. She's from San Francisco, I believe they have laws allowing for the execution of any resident who supports the President of the United States in any way.

A piece yesterday (bad A.D.H.D. here-sometimes I miss things) questioned why conservatives "deny global warming." I'm sure there may be some who do, but most only question the causes behind it. This isn't even a subtle distinction yet it's still impossible for the average Kosmonaut to grasp. Why? Because that would require admitting that conservatives can think, which is a no-no for the lefty brain trust and free speech lovers over there. The very essence of Kos-hood can best be described as a bunch of people sitting in a room and taking turns saying, "No, you're the smartest," with a round of giggles following each affirmation. It's the biggest virtual group hug on the planet.

Here's one (sadly) typical comment on the issue:

"Since their knowledge of science and technology is barely at the ox-cart level..."

On the far left, "science" means "an unquestioning devotion to Al Gore." What you have over there are people who abhor religion but are indistinguishable from any religious fundamentalist ("fundies" to the clever Mensa kids at TDK) once Al Gore begins droning on and on. As I (and other ox-carters) have written before, the lefties have even taken a page from the 16th century Roman Catholic Church (and they call themselves progressives!). Their "carbon credit" scheme is a repackaging of the sale of plenary indulgences. Do something wrong, purchase an imaginary do-over and-hey!-it's all better now. What kind of progressive "science" are they going to give us next-greater fuel efficiency by burning witches?

Oh-oh, my ox-cart wheels seem to have become mired in some b.s. Can I buy a "dung credit" and pretend it's not here?

Lady Gets The Vapors

My, my...what a difference a fortnight makes. Prior to Halloween, Madame Fright had a seemingly untouchable lead over her rival Democrats. The whole thing had become so laughable that they were still letting Dennis Kucinich (D-Nowhere) hang around to play chimp to Hillary's organ grinder.

By now we all know what happened in the Philadelphia debate: Mrs. "Definition of 'Is', Is" attempted to give a straight answer without consulting the polls first. That was dangerous territory for a woman who calls Rasmussen before scheduling her first bowel movement each day. Her decision making process consists largely of sticking her finger in the air to check the prevailing winds. (If elected, she'll be sticking that finger elsewhere to see if you have any money left that the IRS hasn't found yet.)

We also know that the missus doesn't possess any of her-um-husband's folksy charm. Heck, she doesn't possess any of Dan Rather's charm. Whenever Hillary Clinton smiles and attempts sincerity I have flashbacks to every Charles Manson interview I've ever seen. Manson has the slightly more feminine hair, of course.

What happened after the debate is the one thing I'll admit I never saw coming: Hillary Clinton started acting chicky. Yeah, I thought the pant suits were hiding the same thing you did.

Today's incident involving the Madame can't even be called a flip-flop. The phrase "brain fart" entered the vernacular several years ago and Hillary Clinton just became its poster girl. After leading an extraordinarily charmed political life for seven years, Mrs. C. just spent fifteen days with a rabid pack of dogs leaving something for her to step in no matter where she turned.

It all began, of course, with her ladyship doing her best impersonation of someone who had just sustained severe head trauma when asked about NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D-Clueless) "Break The Law-Get Extra Privileges" plan. Mike Tyson sounded more sensible when he still had Evander Holyfield's ear in his mouth. She even tried to resort to the standard Democrat battle cry of "It's all George Bush's fault!" and that didn't work for her. Quickly spotting a wounded idiot, her rivals pounced.

Up until this point, the Mrs. Clinton campaign had been a model of locked-down, KGB-like, ruthless efficiency. One expected it to shoo her opponents back to the lightweight division where they belonged. The campaign's response to the debate hiccup was stunning. It can best be summed up like this: "Mommy, the boys are being mean to me!" It wasn't her fault for wilting under a miniscule amount of pressure, it was Tim Russert's for asking tough questions. Or Barack Obama's for smelling blood. Or John Edwards for choosing a more flattering shade of lip gloss than she.

After that, it got weirder than reading a Thomas Pynchon novel while 'shrooming. Mrs. Clinton sent Mr. Clinton out to defend her honor. The reasons for this being remarkable are twofold. First, it was basically an admission by her camp that she was willing to bring Willy the Zipper in at the first sign of trouble. Years of establishing her own identity had suddenly become Monica Lewinsky's blue dress: yes, you could wash the stain out but everyone is going to remember it was there. Second, bringing Bill Clinton in for a dash of chivalry and damage control is not unlike calling in OJ Simpson for conflict resolution.

Oh, for the record, the aspiring First Husband's response to the problem was, "The boys are being mean to her."

Next, the Woman Who Would Be Queen was caught planting softball questions in her audience. Why? Because the best thing to do when people accuse you of being a controlling bitch is to prove it, I guess. And probably to prevent the boys from being mean to you.

And now, after yielding to pressure from every sane person in America, Gov. Spitzer has decided that only the law abiding citizens of New York should have driver's licenses. Many are saying that the future Madame President pressured noble Comrade Spitzer into doing this. If so, it really didn't help because her response made her look like the concussion hasn't worn off yet. She supported Spitzer when he was for the licensing. Now she says, ""I support Governor Spitzer's decision today..." when decides to drop the plan. He must be the one boy who hasn't ever been mean to her.

Immigration is an issue that looms large in the next presidential election. Her first attempt at staking out a position on it left her looking like Keith Richards giving a lecture on calculus. One would hope that the smartest woman in the history of the known universe (according to Democrats, anyway) would be able to formulate a thought of her own in a debate this important. From what we've seen so far, her position seems to be pointing at Eliot Spitzer and whining, "What he said!"

If she's elected president she will have to make up her own mind during times of crisis.

And the boys will be a lot meaner.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it, people!) and Grizzly Groundswell