If I could have lunch -- just lunch -- with any alive, who would it be?

I'd put my money on Michael Barone for his extraordinary insights into all thing political. Check this out from today OpinionJournal:

The working class Democrats of the mid-20th century voted their interests, and
knew that one of their interests was protecting the nation in which they were
proud to live. The professional class Democrats of today vote their ideology
and, living a life in which they are insulated from adversity, feel free to
imagine that America cannot be threatened by implacable enemies. They can vote
to validate their lifestyle choices and their transnational attitudes.

Read it all here.

Is Iran behind the terror plot in the UK?

Am checking my sources and will get back to you...

I was right === there are Iranian Revolutionary Guard In Lebanon

The news that Iranian Revolutionary Guard were engaged in combat with the Israeli Defense Force in Lebabon last week was confirm today by Israeli media. The power graf:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard have been found
among Hizbollah guerrillas slain by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, Israel's
Channel 10 television reported on Wednesday citing diplomatic sources.
It said the Iranians were identified by documents found on their bodies, but gave
no further details on how many were discovered or when. Neither the Israeli
military nor Hizbollah representatives in Beirut had immediate comment on the
report.

Read it all here.

Iranian Troops on the Ground in Lebanon

My sources tell me that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are on the ground and fighting in Lebabnon. My sources also tell me that the estimated strength is at the brigade level.

Initial observations:

1) If this is the case, it would go a long way to explaining why pitched battles are being fought to hold territory. This is something that guerilla forces don't typically do.
2) If this is the case, it would go a long way to explaining why the Iranians are demanding a ceasefire.
3) If this is the case, it would also explain why the Bush Administration doesn't really care what the IDF does in Lebanon. Iran losing is a huge deal and will draw resources away from Iraq.
4) If this is the case, and the Israelis win, it goes a long way to showing that the Iranians are the paper tigers of the region. So far, they've never lost and they have the veneer of invincibility. Crack that veneer, and I suspect the walls will very quickly close in on them.

More as this as it develops.

Maybe this Israeli attack on Hizbollah is having unintended consequences

Does this much comment, from The Guardian:

Iran warned the west yesterday that attempts to broker a Lebanon peace deal at
today's Rome summit are destined to fail and it predicted a backlash across the
Muslim world unless Israel's military forces were immediately reined in.
Senior government officials said the exclusion from the summit of Iran,
Syria and their Lebanese ally Hizbullah meant that no lasting settlement was
possible.
Hamid Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry spokesman in Tehran, said:
"They should have invited all the countries of the region, including Syria and
Iran, if they want peace. How can you tackle these important issues without
having representatives of all countries in the region?"

The important question here: what if we ignore them? They want to be a power player in the worst way. We've already determined that, while they are very good at issuing threats, as a military state, they're no better than the 3rd world. This little annoucement smacks me as whining and snivelling to be taken seriously. They best thing we can do at this point is to humilate tham by excluding them from any talks.

The mess in the Middle East will smolder along until...

The Israelis capture an Iranian Revolutionary Guard with his papers or some other damning ID, then Iran find it has no friends in the world.

Then the ass-whooping can begin. And it will come from all sides. Even the Russians will get involved? (Who funded the Chechen rebels? Iran). And the Chinese will stand aside as they hate $100 a barrel oil....

And all our problems in the part of the world will abate, at least for a time.

Hizbollah on the ropes?

The latest news is that Syria wants to talk about a cease-fire. two questions arise:

1. Whay would Syria ask for a cease-fire if they were not in charge of the operations?

2. Would this indicate that Syria's / Hizbollah's are suffuciently degraded for them to cry "uncle"? If the could still fight? why would they stop?

Some thoughts on Israel and the mess in the Middle East

An injured finger limits my ability to comment today. However, here's a few thoughts:

1. The Iranians and the Syrians started mess and everybody knows it. Even the Arabs are pissed and have called the Hizbollah action "irresponsible".

2. There is no reason for America to make Israel stop. Thy are serving our purposes in attacking the Iranian-backed Hizbollah.

3. When they are terror masters, the Iranians look invincible. In a pitched battle, they hide behind the skirts of women. They are losing face in front of their neighbors.

4. What do you want to bet that if the shit gets ugly enough, Saddam's WMDs magically reappear...

Boycott Mexico and Mexicans

It's time to back these illegals into a corner and show them what we citizens think. It's time to boycott all of the industries that they inhabit for one day and show them that without us, they would starve. And that we could and should send them back from whence they came.

It's time to boycott for one day:

• All landscape businesses that employs Hispanic employees, some of which may be illegal;
• All housecleaning businesses that employs Hispanic employees, some of which may be illegal;
• Every Mexican restaurant that employs Hispanic employees, some of which may be illegal.

I'll keep you posted as to the day picked. Perhaps it should be Cinco de Mayo. Let's turn their victory into defeat.

Global warming is over

From the UK Telegraph:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Perhaps Dr. S will care to opine....

So it's NOT my SUV

From the BBC:

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

That's what they were saying 8 years ago. Have we just stopped looking at the evidence?

Illegal immigrants protesting new laws

Illegal immigrants all over the country are protesting new laws pending in Congress changing the staus quo. Some are even chanting "Today we march, tomorrow we vote", in an attempt to intimidate those lawmakers and their supporters who stand against illegal immigration and any program of amnesty that rewards their lawlessness.

A quick heads up: Illegal immigrants are not Muslims; Americans are not The French; the backlash against illegals will be directly proportional to the amount of discontent the protester foment. And carrying Mexican flags will only hurt la causa.

Charles Taylor to stand trial

It is a very good thing that Charles Taylor, that notorious scumbag of sub-Sahara Africa is going on trial for his crimes. For those that don't know, Charles Taylor is the former president of Liberia and a war criminal of the highest order. Seeing him at the end of a rope would be a very good thing, at almost the same level as seeing Saddam Hussein slowing twisting in the wind.

What I find interesting is that in a post 9/11 world -- with that "Cowboy" George Bush in the Oval Office -- many of the world's most evil despots are ending up in the dock. Sure, Slobo's UN trial was a bit of a joke and he died in prison of natural causes, but he didn't died in exile somewhere living a life of luxury. No, he died behind bars, which is a good thing.

Perhaps Charles Taylor won't hang. But he probably won't walk away a free man.

And it's nice to see that there are some people in the world that are not so risk averse as to continuously capitulate to fascists.

I'm back from a long working vacation

We're re-organizing the company and life is good. On to Serious subjects

Get this from David Ignatious in the WaPo. In this piece, the author unwittingly gives you all you need to know regarding the oppressively negative coverage of the Iraq War in the second paragraph (ital mine):

Yesterday's release of American journalist Jill Carroll makes this a good moment to celebrate the work that reporters are doing every day in Iraq. They are taking huge personal risks to bring back the news -- not "good news," as some supporters of the administration often seem to want, but the news.

Anyone taking potshots at the "mainstream media" should read the description of what it's like to cover Baghdad that appears in the April/May issue of the American Journalism Review. The story opens with a description of NPR's Deborah Amos, dressed in Arab clothes, anxiously scanning the street for bombers and kidnappers as she heads for an interview in the protected Green Zone. And that's an easy assignment.

The reporters cover Baghdad. Not Iraq, Baghdad. Not Kudistan, Baghdad. That's like covering all of California from a barrio in South Central LA, and then guessing that it's the same across the entire state.

These people should not be listened to....

Snow?

So, it's supposed to snow in the northeast this weekend. How long do anyone think it will take to blame President Bush and Federal Government for the "disaster"? And after one of the mildest winters on record, how long will it take ebfore the eco-crazies pin this on "global warming" (meaning of course, your consumptive patterns in general and your SUV in particular)?

When global cooling starts to kick in in a few years -- due to decrease solar activity -- will we hear the eco-crazies screaming that we need more SUVs to warm the planet?

I detest political fashionabilty dsguised as serious thought.

Trees cause global warming

This is a bit above my pay grade. Perhaps Dr. S will opine. The graf that stopped me cold:

In a discovery that has left climate scientists gasping, researchers have found that the earth's vegetation is churning out vast quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent even than CO2. This is not a product of trees and plants rotting, which everyone already knew was a source of methane; it is an entirely natural side-effect of plant growth that scientists had somehow missed. Yet it is by no means trivial: preliminary estimates suggest that living trees and plants account for about 10 to 30 per cent of the methane entering the atmosphere.

So it wasn't my SUV afterall.

Dow at 11,000

Yahoo!

I said so here. So does that mean I get my own TV show?

So, how come you couldn't tell us face to face

Osama Bin Ladin's behind the the rocket attacks on Israel, or so says his number two. Question: how come he couldn't tell us himself?

My guess: he's probably dead. Or at least deader than Ariel Sharon....

Dr. Dean and his own dementia

From CNN, Wolf Blitzer interviews DNC Chairman Howard Dean (D-VT):

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

From Dr. S this morning:

Most Senate Dems Took Abramoff Cash

Nearly ninety percent of Senate Democrats took money linked to disgraced "Republican" lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a list compiled by the Republican National Committee.

Though reporters continue to insist that the Abramoff imbroglio is "a Republican scandal," 2008 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton took more than $12,000 in tainted cash.

Compared to the party's 2004 standard bearer, however, she's a piker. John Kerry raked in nearly $100,000 in Abramoff-linked donations.

In fact, 40 of the party's 45 U.S. senators made the Jack Abramoff dishonor roll, including:
• Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who received at least $22,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), who received at least $6,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), who received at least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who received at least $20,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who received at least $21,765 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who received at least $12,950 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), who received at least $8,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), who received at least $14,792 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who received at least $79,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who received at least $14,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who received at least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who received at least $45,750 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who received at least $9,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who received at least $14,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who received at least $3,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who received at least $98,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who received at least $28,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), who received at least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), who received at least $6,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who received at least $29,830 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who received at least $10,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who received at least $78,991 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who received at least $20,168 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), who received at least $2,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), who received at least $3,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who received at least $68,941 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), who received at least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), who received at least $4,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), who received at least $4,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who received at least $29,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who received at least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

• Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who received at least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

The harder the Democrats push on this one, the harder it will swing back and hit them in the face.

Tracing cell phone use legal in the US

And if this is legal, then the NSA can do it too.

Power sentence:

Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.

Any wacko liberals / Democrats who try to impeach President Bush on this will have their heads handed to them.

Just a random thought:

Ariel Sharon as the Andrew Jackson (D-TN) of his country and his era. Discuss amongst yourselves.

The difference between Jihadi Islam and other major religions

Read this from the AP and answer the questions at the bottom:

An eight-story building collapsed here yesterday, killing at least 20 people in the latest tragedy to mar the annual gathering of millions of Muslims in Islam's holiest city.

The Interior Ministry said 59 people were injured, but nobody would say — or knew — how many more were trapped in the rubble of Lulu'at al-Khair, which housed shops and restaurants and was rented out as a hostel during pilgrimages.

Talha al-Nizi, a Tunisian guide for pilgrims, said his group had just finished midday prayers and returned at about 1:10 p.m. to their hotel, adjacent to Lulu'at al-Khair, just 200 feet from the Grand Mosque, a focal point of the hajj pilgrimage.

"As I moved to step into my hotel, the whole building collapsed in front of my eyes. The whole street was full of dust," said al-Nizi.

About 1,000 rescue workers, medics and police scrambled over and around the collapsed building.

"Fortunately, the building was almost empty when it collapsed, because most of the residents were in the holy shrine at that time," said civil-defense Maj. Gen. Alwani, who did not provide his first name.

The hajj has been hit with tragedies frequently in recent years. The worst occurred in 1990, when 1,426 pilgrims were killed in a stampede in an overcrowded pedestrian tunnel leading to holy sites in Mecca.

Part 1: Is there any dancing in the street of Tel Aviv or any city in Israel? What about New York or Washington or London or Madrid or Bali?
Part 2: Should Ariel Sharon die, will there be dancing in the streets of Mecca? Ramallah? Baghdad or Damascus or Amman or Kabul or Gaza?

Sharon's legacy

Charles Krauthammer opines with specificity:

Sharon's genius was to seize upon and begin implementing a third way. With a negotiated peace illusory and a Greater Israel untenable, he argued that the only way to security was a unilateral redrawing of Israel's boundaries by building a fence around a new Israel and withdrawing Israeli soldiers and settlers from the other side. The other side would become independent Palestine.

Accordingly, Sharon withdrew Israel entirely from Gaza. On the other front, the West Bank, the separation fence now under construction will give the new Palestine about 93 percent of the West Bank. Israel's 7 percent share will encompass a sizable majority of Israelis who live on the West Bank. The rest, everyone understands, will have to evacuate back to Israel.

The success of this fence-plus-unilateral-withdrawal strategy is easily seen in the collapse of the intifada. Palestinian terror attacks are down 90 percent. Israel's economy has revived. In 2005 it grew at the fastest rate in the entire West. Tourists are back and the country has regained its confidence. The Sharon idea of a smaller but secure and demographically Jewish Israel garnered broad public support, marginalized the old parties of the left and right, and was on the verge of electoral success that would establish a new political center to carry on this strategy.

I essentially agree. One can not allow one's enemies to define your nation state. The Israelis I know -- a determined lot they are -- understand that both surrender and infinite war are bad options. The result -- a fence and a pullout -- is really the best bet. There may very well be chaos on the other side of the fence, but once that fence is completed, it's somebody elses responsibility.

Memo to Abu Mazen: control your thugs or watch American cash vanish from your coffers. Not that it will stop the French or the rest of Jew-Hating European Union (EU), home to the last attempted genocide.

Quote of the Day II:

It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.

The always amusing Ann Coulter, on liberal Democrat's strategy to exploit the revelations that the NSA spied on terrorists, both within and without the US.

Quote of the Day I:

"The plain fact is that rap is "the most overtly and consistently misogynistic music ever produced in human history."

John McWhorter, quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

The Hitch on Sharon

Good stuff. It deserves to be read in its entirety.

From the unsurprising news department

Iran's president hopes for Ariel Sharon's death. As we hope for his, I suppose.

Can some please tell me the essential difference between what Iran's president said and what Pat Robertson said below?

Pat Robertson again shows why a he's fool

I have long been on the record saying that Pat Robertson is a dangerous whack job, whose belief matrix has more in common with al Qaida than your run of the mill born-again Christian. That stated, get a load of this nonsense:

The Reverend Pat Robertson says Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's massive stroke could be God's punishment for giving up Israeli territory.
The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network told viewers of "The 700 Club" that Sharon was "dividing God's land," even though the Bible says doing so invites "God's enmity."
Robertson added, "I would say woe to any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course."
He noted that former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated.
Robertson said God's message is, "This land belongs to me. You'd better leave it alone."

Please, enough. If the Rev. Pat gets hit by car, can we call it God's will? I have already stated what I think did Ariel Sharon in: too much food and not enough exercise. Let's put it another way: sloth and gluttony.

It kills everyone.

More problems in France

From the AFP via The Washington Times:

PARIS -- A gang of more than 20 youths -- thought to be North African immigrants -- terrorized hundreds of train passengers in a rampage of violence, robbery and sexual assault on New Year's Day, French officials said yesterday.
The five-hour-long criminal frenzy was "totally unacceptable," French President Jacques Chirac told reporters. "Those guilty will be found and punished, as they deserve."
The gang of between 20 and 30 youths boarded the train, heading from Nice on the French Riviera to Lyon, in eastern France, early on Jan. 1, as it carried 600 passengers home from New Year's Eve partying overnight.
Once inside, they went wild, forcing passengers to hand over mobile phones and wallets, and slashing seats and breaking windows.

This sort or criminal activity has nothing to do with the "lack of opportunities" or "latent racism" the apologists from last fall's insurection claimed was the "root cause" of the anarchy. No, these people are thugs and simply need to be put in prison for a long time. The last paragraph though, reflects the attitudes of local law enforcement / government and indicates to me that they are not about to get serious in addressing this problem:

Three others -- a man and two boys -- were arrested briefly in Marseille but were released despite reports they were carrying a knife, a screwdriver and a small amount of hashish.

In Rudy Guiliani's (R-America) New York, people with illegal weapons and / or drugs got sent to the slammer because they were often wanted for other, more serious crimes.

It will get worse before it gets better.

Ariel Sharon Dead?

Probably not, although one can not carry that much weight around for any prolonged period of time without bad things happening to one's body. He's the poster boy for what happens to you if you eat lots of bad food and never exercise. For decades.

And, of course, Palestinians are ready to dance in the streets. Not that their situation will improve one iota should Mr. Sharon pass. They will still be governed by what amounts to a criminal gang, with no interest in becoming a modern state living in the 21st Century. And, to Mr. Sharon's credit, Israel has fianlly realized that the future of its nation state has almost nothing to do with what Palestinians want, and everything to do with what they want. Nationhood can not be defined as being the opposite or negative of something.

NSA eavesdropping and impeachment

I just love when the hysterical left loses control of their hatred of President Bush and does something wacky. Of Late, the talk is of impeachment over the NSA monitoring overseas communications between suspected al Qaida operatives and people in the US. From Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle -- hardly a right wing rag -- a nice synopsis of what the left think is happening and what it thinks it can accomplish:

The Left -- from The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter -- has pulled out the impeachment card and is brandishing it as the weapon that will drive George W. Bush from the White House. This could be more than talk. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is consulting with legal eagles as she explores the idea.

I must say, I am tickled at their efforts. I supported impeaching the perjury-prone President Clinton, but preferred censure to removing him from office. I also saw the damage to Republicans who pushed to chase Clinton out of office.

But the Bush-haters won't heed history, not when they see an opportunity to relive the glory days of Watergate: Republicans evil; Democrats uncorrupted; reporters respected. As Alter wrote after the story broke that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international calls in efforts to uncover possible agents of al Qaida, "Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

Angry leftists are so hysterical that they cannot distinguish between government agents eavesdropping on a president's political enemies, and the data mining of international phone calls in an earnest effort to thwart another Sept. 11 terrorist attack. They don't see that Bush, rather then trying to hide his role in the effort, signed off on the program more than 30 times.

What I find interesting is that technology can protect average citizens from death or injury from the hand of al Qaida with a minimum of disturbance. Looking back only 65 years, the Federal Government under Franklin Roosevelt interned (meaning locked up behind barbed wire and guarded with guns) all the Japanese Americans in California and surrounding areas. At the time, nobody even questioned it -- certainly not the Democratic Party. Now, because of a blind hatred of George Bush and a desire to remove him from office by whatever means necessary, the Democratic Party is willing to endanger the lives of Americans -- who overwhelmingly support the idea of having the NSA warrantlessly eavesdropping on bad guys.

One has to wonder, do Liberals and Congressional Democrats really think that NSA spying on foreign communications is dire infringement on our civil liberties? Do they really think it will advance their goals of becoming the majority party again? Do they really think that aiding and abetting the enemy will win them votes in the '06 election? Or keep their constituents lives safer?

Organic foolishness

Everytime I hear someone say that "organic" food is healthier to eat or better for the environment, I automatically thinkthat they either a) "left"-over hippies ot they're punaciously ignorant. So, when I read an article somewhere that doesn't automatically assume that "organic" is better than "non-organic", I'm pleasantly surprised.

That stated, I essentially concur with the article in Glasgow Scotland's, The Herald, (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/53522.html). However, it's not as simple as this guy portends. The definition of "organic" is contentious (and litigious) now. Most importantly, the author is confusing organic vs. conventional agriculture with sustainable vs. industrial agriculture. For instance, more and more organic crops (with the USDA “Organic” seal) are being farmed industrially. And organic-industrial agriculture uses as much (or more) non-renewable resources as conventional. Although I haven't reviewed the literature, it would be interesting to see if energy accounting or balancing has been conducted in conventional-industrial vs. organic-industrial production; I would expect that the two types would be equivalent in terms of overall energy usage. Where land is limiting or where soils are marginal, conventional is obviously the best option.

The author does not mention "sustainability". From a thermodynamic standpoint, all agriculture is non-sustainable. In fact, human existence is non-sustainable, unless of course we are willing to somehow re-attach the forbidden fruit to the tree of knowledge and return to the garden. Therefore, I propose that the author feel "real good" by growing his own garden, and getting "off the grid", so I can consume more of the resources he will be sacrificing.

Although I grow organic citrus, it does not mean I am a standard bearer. I'm simply participating in a capitalist venture that allows a small grower to compete with larger ones, by compensating for the economy of scale by providing a specialty product for niche clientele - most of whom are status-conscious, materialistic bobos with the ignorant view that organic crop production is somehow more earth-friendly and better for them. Some of these folks (like my ex-mother-in-law and her daughter) are paranoid hypochondriacs, while others are hippie-marxists. Hell, if they want to pay me 50% more for their produce - fine - I'll grow it.

Finally, as I've opined for years, the day will come when several classes of produce are available for consumers, all with different levels of synthetic and pharmaceutical input:

"Hippie-Organic" - Produce grown only with animal work, fertilized only with fecal material, and protected with nothing remotely resembling a pesticide whatsoever (note that disclaimers will be prominently displayed on this produce holding the grower harmless from dysentery and cholera)

"Non-Xenobiotic" - conventionally produced crops with no xenobiotic materials used except those which are deemed naturally occuring (similar to today's USDA Organic")

"No Synthetic Pesticides" - conventionally fertilized with no synthetic pesticides

"Yuppie-Organic" - GM modified produce with enhanced levels of untested youth hormones and skin-enhancing chemicals fertilized conventionally with no pesticides

“Conventional” – as if there is really such a thing.

Enough already.

Dr. S

Yield Curve inversion

I read three pieces in three different online publications discussing bond rate "yield inversion", usually called a harbinger for recession (or economic slowdown). While the Fed has signalled that it's not going to tighten credit any more, there are those in the MSM who desparately want bad economic times, else, President Bush will get undo credit that an "unelected" president should not recieve.

That stated, here's a bit from a piece from RCP. It has value insofar and the naysayers are wrong that the curve actually will invert. It only might, and only if The FED continues to tighten, whcih they said they won't do. Power graf:

The ``yield curve'' of interest rates ``inverts.'' An inversion means that short-term interest rates (say, on three-month Treasury bills) exceed longer-term interest rates (say, on 10-year Treasury bonds). Usually, short-term rates are lower, because the risk of lending for lengthier periods is greater. Since 1965 interest-rate inversions have occurred seven times -- and recessions have followed in five, notes Bill Dudley of Goldman Sachs. The reason: an inversion signals tight money. In 2006 Dudley expects another inversion, as the Fed raises short rates. But he thinks we'll escape a recession, because the overall level of rates will remain low.

I think this is correct and look for growth in 3-4% range, barring unforeseen occurances.

This is good news

Headline reads: Fed sought to signal rate cycle near end

Read it here. Stocks spiked on this and should have. The economy is growing at a robust pace. Inflation is virtually non-existent. Unemployment is at historic lows.

Yeppers! We're off to the races. Watch for business expenditures to cycle into the mix during the balance of '06.

Happy New Year

Jeez -- has it been since 18 Nov since I posted? Yes, apparently. Closing the books on the Business year end is a job or work. Not to mention all the holiday crap.

But I'm back -- more later.