Space Shuttle Endeavour to dock with ISS today

In fact, it's happening right now:


This mission is about expanding the International Space Station's capacity to hold a larger full time crew. Here is a photo of the Endeavour crew, and a summary of their mission:

Image above: These seven astronauts take a break from training to pose for the STS-126 crew portrait. Astronaut Christopher J. Ferguson, commander, is at center; and astronaut Eric A. Boe, pilot, is third from the right. Remaining crew members, pictured from left to right, are astronauts Sandra H. Magnus, Stephen G. Bowen, Donald R. Pettit, Robert S. (Shane) Kimbrough and Heidemarie M. Stefanyshyn-Piper, all mission specialists. Image credit: NASA

Veteran space flier Navy Capt. Christopher J. Ferguson will command the STS-126 mission aboard Endeavour to deliver equipment to the International Space Station that will enable larger crews to reside aboard the complex. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric A. Boe will serve as the pilot. The mission specialists are Navy Capt. Stephen G. Bowen, Army Lt. Col. Robert S. Kimbrough, Navy Capt. Heidemarie M. Stefanyshyn-Piper and NASA astronauts Donald R. Pettit and Sandra H. Magnus.

Magnus will remain on the station, replacing Expedition 17/18 Flight Engineer Gregory E. Chamitoff, who returns to Earth with the STS-126 crew. Magnus will serve as a flight engineer and NASA science officer for Expedition 18. Magnus will return to Earth on shuttle mission STS-119.

Endeavour will carry a reusable logistics module that will hold supplies and equipment, including additional crew quarters, additional exercise equipment, equipment for the regenerative life support system and spare hardware.

STS-126 is the 27th shuttle mission to the International Space Station.

You can read more about the mission's specific tasks here:

Station Prepares for Expanding Crew

Expanding kitchen facilities, adding more bedrooms and an extra bathroom all sound like home improvements that many homeowners have tackled. But when the “house” is the International Space Station orbiting 220 miles above Earth, things are a little more complicated than visiting the local home improvement store for materials. Just in time for its 10th anniversary, the space station will get a delivery via space shuttle Endeavour that might win a prize for out-of-this-world home makeover.

When Endeavour and crew lift off on the STS-126 mission for the 27th shuttle flight to the station, it will be packed with supplies like food and clothing for the station crew members. However, Endeavour’s major payload consists of equipment for enlarging the space station’s capacity to accommodate a six-member crew. The high-tech home improvement materials are stowed inside the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Leonardo, which will be tucked inside the shuttle’s cargo bay.

Some of the additions aboard will be: [...]

You can read the rest for the details, with photos too.

UPDATE: They have arrived!


Image above: The STS-126 crew is welcomed aboard the International Space Station by the Expedition 18 crew. Credit: NASA TV


Related Links:

Astronaut Donald Pettit
Our own Astronaut from Oregon. This is his official biography on the NASA website.

Astronaut Greg Chamitoff's Journal
A fascinating look at what the astronaut's life is like on the ISS.
     

Oregon Emergency Amateur Radio in Action

When I bought my police scanner a while back, I made sure it had the capability to scan Ham Frequencies too, so I could find out what kind of Ham radio community we have here on the south coast.

At first, it seemed like there was nothing going on; my random attempts to scan ham frequencies didn't turn up much. But then I read that ham communities often hang out at certain frequencies, usually around a designated "net" that meets up on specific dates.

I discovered on-line that there is an ARES net (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) that meets up on Tuesday evenings. They do a role call check in, make Ham Club announcements, invite visitors to introduce themselves, then turn the frequency over for general amateur use. Chit chat often follows, and I've found that if I scan frequencies in that band range, there is often conversations going on. It's a pretty active community locally, and they talk to people all over the state and in surrounding states like Washington, Nevada, and California too.

I found out about our local ARES net here:

Oregon ARES District 5

Dedicated to providing volunteer emergency communications to public and private community service agencies within and around Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties, Oregon.

When all Normal Means of Communications Fail!

There are LOTS of links and resources to explore on the site. It was there that I found my local ARES net, and began to learn about ARES and what they do. And I found out how, on a local level, just how important they can be.

In early December of last year, a severe winter storm hit Northern Oregon, bringing high winds and flooding which knocked out conventional communications in several parts of the state. Amateur Radio operators, as part of ARES, provided valuable assistance in keeping communication lines open:


Amateur Radio to the Rescue in Oregon

[...] “I’m going to tell you who the heroes were from the very beginning of this…the ham radio operators. These people just came in and actually provided a tremendous communication link to us,” said Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski after a visit Tuesday to Vernonia and a fly-over there and other affected areas.

In Oregon’s northern coast, callers were again able to make and receive long-distance phone calls after floods and mudslides breached a major fiber-optic line in several places around Westport.

A network of at least 60 volunteer amateur radio operators working along the coast and inland helped from keep crucial systems such as 911 calls, American Red Cross and hospital services connected. The ARRL provided emergency communications, relaying information about patient care and lists of supplies needed in areas cut off by water.

“You are amateur in name only,” said Steve Sanders, a spokesman for District One of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES), which helped in several key counties hit by the storm.

The storm has now largly passed, but ARES is still providing communications to the coast, with more than 60 volunteers working at the coast and many more at points in between.

The District One Emergency Radio Network was activated at 8 AM Monday morning and is still in operation today; District One ARES serves Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Tillamook and Washington counties - the northwest corner of the state.

According to ARRL Oregon Section Public Information Coordinator Steve Sanders, KE7JSS, “We are working closely with the American Red Cross as well as the major hospitals, Heartnet radio network and district-wide emergency managers, including Oregon Emergency Management in Salem.” [...]

Read the whole thing, it's quite impressive what they were able to do. ARES sounds like sounds like something useful I would like learn more about, and perhaps even join in and help. It's yet another thing to motivate me to get my Amateur license in the coming year.

You can find out more general information about ARES, what it is and what it does, from this description on the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) website:

The Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES)


Related Links:

http://www.ares.org/
This site has more info about ARES and other Emergency Amateur Radio groups as well.

Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service
Another emergency service group, whose memebers often overlap with ARES. But RACES has a different history and a more specific purpose. Follow the link to find out more.

MILITARY AFFILIATE RADIO SYSTEM (M.A.R.S.)
Anyone interested in providing Amateur assistance to the US military should visit this site. I'll be looking into it.
     

Change is here, whether you like it or not

Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage

[...] “It’s not ‘Yes we can,’ ” said Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco city supervisor, referring to President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign mantra. “It’s ‘Yes we will.’ ”

Carrying handmade signs with slogans like “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “Straights Against Hate,” big crowds filled civic centers and streets in many cities. In New York, some 4,000 people gathered at City Hall, where speakers repeatedly called same-sex marriage “the greatest civil rights battle of our generation.”

“We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn.

In Los Angeles, where wildfires had temporarily grabbed headlines from continuing protests over Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of about 9,000 people in Spanish and English, and seemed to express confidence that the measure, which is being challenged in California courts, would be overturned.

“I’ve come here from the fires because I feel the wind at my back as well,” said the mayor, who arrived at a downtown rally from the fire zone on a helicopter. “It’s the wind of change that has swept the nation. It is the wind of optimism and hope.” [...]

I understand perfectly well people's concerns about not wanting to change the definition of what a marriage is. But no-fault divorce has already done that. For years I worked for attorneys that dealt with divorce cases, and saw it in action. No-fault divorce has turned marriage, in it's legal definition, into nothing more than a civil contract, to be broken at will.

This is why it's being called a "civil right". As a civil contract, how can it be legally denied to gay people? Arguments against gay marriage as a religious choice will probably still hold up, because no one has to join a religion that they don't like. But that argument does not hold up in the secular sphere, nor does it enjoy popular support there. To continue to try to force it on secular people is only going to create continuing resistance... and resentment.

If conservative Christian churches want to maintain the right to not perform gay marriages in their churches because of their religious beliefs, I believe that is their choice and their right. But secular people also have their right to make their own choices. If the religious right continues to try to control secular civil marriage contracts to reflect their own views, they may find themselves in a very uncomfortable, and losing, position.


Related Link:

The anti-gay marriage votes
     

An Economic 9/11? A Depression? Trends...

Pat posted these excerpts of an article about trend predictions by Gerald Celente, Editor and Publisher, The Trends Journal:

The coming revolution?

I would like to believe he's a crank or a silly conspiracy theorist, but his trend analysis seems to be pretty accurate most of the time. I found a link to the complete source text:

Interview: Economic 9/11

It's pretty grim. I don't know if I believe all of it, but it's not hard to see the potential for much of it. While I don't believe in being pessimistic, I also believe in being prepared. Like so many things in life, it's a question of balance.
     

The Republican Winners, and Their Message

Some Republicans won in this decidedly difficult election year for Republicans. Do they have any advice the GOP should heed, as it licks it's wounds and tries to plan a strategy for 2010?

3 Successful Republicans Caution Against a Move to the Right

[...] Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.

“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.

“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.

“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.

Their comments go to the competing visions for the party’s future that will confront Republicans as they return to Capitol Hill next week to elect House and Senate leaders and begin the process of adjusting to a second consecutive round of resounding losses on Capitol Hill. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Notice they didn't say "abandon conservatism". They simply speak of being more flexible, reaching out instead of being too narrow and intolerant, and not putting all our eggs in one basket.

Some would call that common sense.

The Democrats regained control of Congress by their clever stategy of supporting Blue Dog Democrats, conservative Democrats, to gain wins against Republicans. I'm wondering if the Republicans shouldn't learn something from that, and try supporting "Red Dog" Republicans, liberal Republicans, to win against democrats in blue states.

Instead, a vocal element in the Republican party has become strident, labeling anyone who doesn't fit their definition of conservative as RINOs, moderates who need to be driven out of the party.

Look where that's gotten us today. The entire Northeast, once a Republican stronghold, has been lost to the Democrats as many of New England's Republicans have abandoned the party they feel has abandoned them.

Even here in Oregon, the Uber Republicans who felt our Republican Senator Gordon Smith was too liberal to support, decided to throw their vote away on the Constitution party instead. Now we have that disgusting pig Jeff Merkely as our new senator. How is that supposed to be an improvement?

There has been too much focus on trying to kick people out of the Republican party. It's clearly a losing strategy. Isn't it time we focus on trying GROW our party and to attract people INTO it instead?


Related Links:

Can't we all just get along?

"Politics is the art of the possible"

PAWLENTY CALLS FOR A MORE DIVERSE GOP
     

Our new Four Star General, Ann Dunwoody

Dunwoody becomes first female four-star general

[...] In an Associated Press interview after the ceremony, Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said that if there is one thing that distinguishes Dunwoody it is her lifetime commitment to excelling in uniform.

"If you talk to leaders around the Army and say, `What do you think about Ann Dunwoody?' almost unanimously you get: `She's a soldier,'" Casey said, adding that he admires the fact that, "she's a soldier first."

Dunwoody hails from a family of military men dating back to the 1800s. Her father, 89-year-old Hal Dunwoody — a decorated veteran of World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam — was in the audience, along with the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, plus the Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen.

Dunwoody, whose husband, Craig Brotchie, served for 26 years in the Air Force, choked up at times during a speech in which she said she only recently realized how much her accomplishment means to others.

"This promotion has taken me back in time like no other event in my entire life," she said. "And I didn't appreciate the enormity of the events until tidal waves of cards, letters, and e-mails started coming my way.

"And I've heard from men and women, from every branch of service, from every region of our country, and every corner of the world. I've heard from moms and dads who see this promotion as a beacon of home for their own daughters and after affirmation that anything is possible through hard work and commitment.

"And I've heard from women veterans of all wars, many who just wanted to say congratulations; some who just wanted to say thanks; and still other who just wanted to say they were so happy this day had finally come." [...]

She is, in so many ways, an excellent choice.



     

Does Obama = Tolerance? The Experiment

Tolerance fails T-shirt test

As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we're all united now, let's consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.

So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:

"McCain Girl."

"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters," Catherine told us. "I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be."

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain's name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain. [...]

Death threats? That's a bit over the top. But hey, it's eighth graders we're talking about, so I wouldn't take it too literally. But still, not exactly a lot of tolerance.

Of course, she wore the Obama t-shirt the next day, and the reactions to that... well, read the whole thing. In the end she wrote a report about it for her history class, and the irony of intolerance by the "tolerant" Obama supporters made for an interesting classroom discussion.

Even after the experiment, Catherine never did say who she preferred. Maybe she'll grow up to be a "swing" voter. ;-)
     

Is socialism inevitable for democracies?

Mark Steyn seems to think so:

Mark Steyn: 'Center-right' America lurches further left

[...] My Republican friends are now saying, oh, not to worry, look at the exit polls, this is still a "center-right" country. Americans didn't vote to go left, they voted to go cool. It was a "Dancing With The Stars" election: Obama's a star, and everyone wants to dance with him. It doesn't mean they're suddenly gung-ho for left-wingery.

Up to a point.

Unlike those excitable countries where the peasants overrun the presidential palace, settled democratic societies rarely vote to "go left." Yet oddly enough that's where they've all gone. In its assumptions about the size of the state and the role of government, almost every advanced nation is more left than it was, and getting lefter.

Even in America, federal spending (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) has gone from $600 billion in 1965 to $3 trillion today. The Heritage Foundation put it in a convenient graph: It's pretty much a straight line across four decades, up, up, up. Doesn't make any difference who controls Congress, who's in the White House. The government just grows and grows, remorselessly. Every two years, the voters walk out of their town halls and school gyms and tell the exit pollsters that three-quarters of them are "moderates" or "conservatives" (i.e, the center and the right) and barely 20 percent are "liberals." And then, regardless of how the vote went, big government just resumes its inexorable growth. [...]

Government keeps getting bigger. What is to stop it, if the people who vote can't or won't put limits on it?


Related Link:

Milton Friedman: "We Are All Keynesians Now"
     

Mark Foley tries to find his way back

AP Interview: Foley breaks silence on sex scandal

[...] "I'm trying to find my way back," Foley said in an interview with The Associated Press, his first public comments on the scandal since resigning from Congress on Sept. 29, 2006.

Foley insists he did nothing illegal and never had sexual contact with teens, just inappropriate Internet conversations. Investigations by the FBI and Florida authorities ended without criminal charges.

[...]

"I believed I owed my constituents an apology," Foley said. "I embarrassed them and I embarrassed my family and I wanted to have a chance in a public setting to lend my voice to what happened, not through an attorney, not through a spokesperson, but from myself."

Today, he's a pariah in Congress and the Republican Party. The affable man who reveled in the spotlight finds himself branded a pedophile, at best, a creep. Three former staffers refused comment because of their disgust with his behavior. He makes his living investing in real estate and other business. [...]

When he says "find his way back", I don't think he means running for office; he was nearing retirement when the scandal broke anyway. Perhaps he means just back from underneath the bus that ran him over.
     

Is the Fairness Doctrine even doable anymore?

I hope not. Here is an article that has a good look at the problems involved in trying to re-instate it:

Technology, New Media Pose Major Challenges to Fairness Doctrine, Two Democrats Say

(CNSNews.com) - The variety of media today and technological advances make it challenging, if not pointless, to try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com.

“It’s increasingly difficult to try and put quotas on political speech over any medium, so I think that would be the challenge anyone would face if they wanted to try and do that,” he said, when asked at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Nov. 4.

“I can’t speak for all my colleagues on that issue,” said Cardin. “I can only say that I think technology has possibly moved beyond the ability to regulate things, at least as it stands now.”

[...]

Today, many Democrats in Congress have said the Fairness Doctrine should be re-imposed to counter the influence of conservative talk radio, which dominates the marketplace with shows hosted by people such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin.

Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have not said the regulation should also apply to network news television, such as ABC, NBC or CBS, which use the public airwaves.

On Nov. 4, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended the Fairness Doctrine, telling Fox News: “I think we should all try to be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Van Hollen, however, told CNSNews.com that talk radio content does not need to be fair and balanced, adding that the Fairness Doctrine is a difficult issue for President-elect Barack Obama and the new Democratic Congress to deal with because of today’s “new media.”

“I think it’s increasingly difficult, because it’s kind of like a balloon,” said Van Hollen. “In other words, even if you wanted to go there – and I’m not saying we do – but if you wanted to go there, when you squeeze one end of the balloon, you know, simply the conversation can just go to others.

“I think even if you wanted to go back to the Fairness Doctrine, technology may have passed it by,” he said. [...]

It's ironic to hear some Democrats argue that conservative talk radio gives Republicans an unfair advantage. Note to Rabid Democrats: your party now controls the White House, the Congress and the Senate. Conservative Talk Radio sure hasn't delivered an advantage for the Republicans any time recently. Ditto Fox News. So what ARE you going on about?


Neal Boortz today highlights the absurdity of the Fairness Doctrine:

[...] Note, please, that whenever despots try to seize control of a government, and with it a country, they first seize control of the means of communication. How can you observe this in country after country with despot after despot engaged in coup after coup and not understand that this is exactly what our own politicians do when they try to increases their control over broadcasting? How will the Democrat's looming attempt to reign in talk radio be any different than Hugo Chavez' attempts to shut down opposition newspapers in Venezuela? And trust me ... the Republicans would have tried the same thing during the Bush Administration if talk radio had been overwhelming liberal. Richard Nixon used to brag about how he used the "Fairness Doctrine" to harass left-wing commentary on television. Democrats and liberals generally fail miserably at talk radio .. therefore it must be destroyed.

One more point about this "public's airwaves" dog squeeze. How does your newspaper get to you every day? Do you think it just magically appears at your doorstep? Hardly .. it is delivered over --- guess what? --- publicly owned highways and roads! Yeah! The "public's highways!" How about a Fairness Doctrine for newspaper editorial pages! Oh, wait .. there's that darn Constitution in the way again. Don't you just hate that?

Whether our information comes to us over "public airwaves", "public highways", the internet or anything else, the less government interferes with it the better. While some interference might be unavoidable (regulating obscenity, pornography, terrorism), the government certainly doesn't need to be encouraged to regulate it for partisan purposes. Surely there are enough real problems we are paying them to deal with? We don't need Thought Police regulating our political debate and discussion.
     

A "movement" for anti-racist whites?

Apparently. Sandy Banks of the LA Times takes a close look:

Where whiteness meets race
The Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere -- yes it's real -- tackles the notion of white privilege and white people's responsibility to challenge racism, but can it help move people beyond race?

The Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere was fired up at its conference in downtown Los Angeles last month.

"Reject the Hate in '08" was their rally cry at the UCLA Downtown Labor Center near MacArthur Park.

"White privilege," one speaker said, "is the enemy of equality."

"We have to maintain our activism," warned another, "and not let whiteness overtake us."

The crowd -- mostly young and white, with a hippie vibe -- applauded as the small corps of self-described "anti-racist whites" tried to introduce them to their hidden racist ways. The peasant skirts, political T-shirts and revolutionary cries made me feel like I'd wandered back in time, into a radical chic salon.

But I clapped too, because it was nice to hear white people talk publicly, bluntly, about race. And not pretend to be colorblind.

Welcome to the Brave New World. But don't judge this article by the opening excerpt. I've resisted the temptation to print extensive excerpts, because none of them could represent the article sufficiently; this piece goes all over the place, like an amusement park ride. Just when you think it you know where it's going, it jerks you in another direction. By the time you're finished, you feel like the author; you are grateful to give it a rest. It's not a long article, but it IS interesting, for it shows us how we got here, and where we might be going.

Oh Brave New World, with such people in it!
     

I want Michael Steele for our new RNC Leader

Michael Steele in the WSJ: Listen. Adapt. Be Positive.

Republicans once said that the opportunities this nation has to offer rest not in government but rather in the hands of individuals. Over the past decade or so, however, we Republicans lost our way. The disparity between our rhetoric and our action grew until our credibility snapped. It wasn't the fault of our ideals. It was the failure of our leadership.

[...]

Most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for. We can tell you why public schools aren't working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how we'll better educate children. We're well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can't begin to explain how we'll help the poor. We exclude far better than we welcome.

[...]

We must articulate a positive vision for America's future that speaks to Americans' hopes, concerns and needs. It's time to stop defining ourselves by what we are not, and tell voters what we believe, how we'll lead, and where we'll go; how we Republicans will make America better; how we'll make their families more prosperous, their children better educated, their parents more secure, and all of us healthier, safer and stronger.

Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded on the values we Republicans have always stood for. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Read the whole thing. "Attracting new people" does not mean kicking people out of our party, as various sub-groups within the party are now advocating. Republicans need to focus more on the things we all agree on, and less on things that divide us. If we don't, we will simply be the party of disagreeableness that nobody wants to listen to or vote for.

Michael Steele understands. He's made of the right stuff to lead the RNC:

Steele Makes It Official: To Run for RNC Chief

I hope his advice is heard. We've been too focused on negativity. Let's agree on the things we can agree on, be positive about that, and get on with it.
     

Thank You to All Our Veterans Everywhere

Thank You for all your effort and sacrifices. God Bless.
     

Oregon gun owners with concealed carry permits to be treated like sex offenders?

Uh oh. What happened to the understanding of "privacy"?

Targeting law-abiding gun owners again

Look at what they’re doing in Oregon to licensed concealed weapons owners (hat tip - Orbusmax)

[...] We live in a country where convicted illegal alien felons have more privacy rights than law-abiding gun owners. [...]

I intend to get a concealed carry permit, and I don't see why my address and personal information need to be made public to just anyone and everyone. Law abiding citizens who go through the training class and pay the permit fees should not be treated like criminals because of it.

I had an NRA membership years ago, but I let it lapse. Last week I signed up again. None too soon, apparently. I have a link to the NRA in the right sidebar if you want to check it out.
     

A long lament about Republican errors

From P.J. O'Rourke:

We Blew It
A look back in remorse on the conservative opportunity that was squandered.

Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone--gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that's headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.

[...]

In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.

When the Monica Lewinsky news broke, my wife set me straight about the issue. "Here," she said, "is the most powerful man in the world. And everyone hates his wife. What's the matter with Sharon Stone? Instead, he's hitting on an emotionally disturbed intern barely out of her teens." But our horn rims were so fogged with detestation of Clinton that we couldn't see how really detestable he was. If we had stayed our hand in the House of Representatives and treated the brute with shunning or calls for interventions to make him seek help, we might have chased him out of the White House. (Although this probably would have required a U.S. news media from a parallel universe.)

Such things as letting the abortion debate be turned against us and using the gravity of the impeachment process on something that required the fly-swat of pest control were strategic errors. Would that blame could be put on our strategies instead of ourselves. We have lived up to no principle of conservatism.

[...]

But are we men and women of principle? And I don't mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don't get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we're talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.

Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?)

Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)

[...]

Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They're in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don't want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched. [...]

These are some of the highlights. There's lots more, it's rather long. It's both funny, and painful.
     

Oy! The French are expressing doubts already

From the Brussel's Journal, an excerpt from L'EXPRESS: Saint Barack

[...] Rapidly, the world will learn that this man was elected to defend the interests of his country above all. It's fine if, for now, the universal order of the day is that what is good for America is good for the world. It remains to be seen how long this illusion will last.

Nothing like that European optimism, is there? Well the French can always work on electing minorities in their own country. Ditto the rest of Europe.

Follow the link if you want to see the nasty cover L'EXPRESS planned to use if McCain won. There is no pleasing some people.
     

Is Republicanism in New England Dead?

When I was growing up in Connecticut, my hometown was predominantly Republican, and the party itself was strong throughout New England. Now, it's influence is like a distant memory. What happened? This article from the AP has a look at that question with some possible explanations:

GOP a dying breed in New England

HARTFORD, Conn. – A generation ago the Republican Party was the dominant political force in New England, populating the region's congressional delegations with moderates like Connecticut's Lowell P. Weicker Jr. and Rhode Island's John Chafee.

But today's GOP, led by a more socially conservative wing of the party, is finding votes harder to come by.

[...]

New England's decision to "go the other way" in recent elections is a dramatic transformation for a region considered a Republican stronghold a generation ago.

The Republican Party and New England have a long history together.

At their first presidential convention, in 1856, Republicans nominated John C. Fremont on a platform of abolishing slavery in the territories — a widely held view in the North. While Fremont lost, he carried 11 Northern states. Later, Abraham Lincoln captured the presidency by winning 18 Northern states.

By the late 1940s, Republicans held 21 of 28 of New England's seats in the House of Representatives. But the turning point came in 1964, when the Republicans nominated conservative Barry Goldwater for president, said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

Known for being fiscally conservative but more socially liberal, Northeast moderates — dubbed the Rockefeller Republicans after the former New York governor — started to be eclipsed by the more socially conservative wing of the party.

"The eastern establishment got weaker and weaker," Rose said. "Today, there's really no eastern establishment to speak of."

[...]

"There is no longer, to speak of, a moderate voice within the party," Rose said. "It's a party that's becoming more narrow and there's really no sense of compromise within the party."

Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, said she believes the GOP can still come back, at least in independent-minded New Hampshire where the state motto is "Live Free or Die."

"It depends on the state. I don't really think you can look at it as a regional phenomenon," Donahue said of New England politicians trending Democratic. "The further north you get, the colder it gets, the more the voters look at (races) on a case-by-case basis."

[...]

Lawrence J. Cafero Jr., the Republican leader of Connecticut's House of Representatives, blames the image of the national Republican party for hurting the GOP in New England, where Republicans historically have often favored fiscal responsibility, abortion rights, protection of personal liberties and strong environmental policies.

He believes the problem worsened with the 1994 so-called "Republican Revolution," when midterm congressional elections added 54 Republican seats in the House.

"They lost their way and I think more and more New England people, especially those who were Republicans basically because of smaller government and less government intrusion into our lives, started to see their party led by people whose foremost issues were social issues, religious and values and morals, etc.," Cafero said.

"I think that turned a lot of people off in New England and they didn't feel the party was really with them," he added.

Carrie James, a regional press secretary with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which supports Democratic congressional candidates, said bad feelings about President Bush, the war in Iraq and the weakened economy have helped to persuade New England voters to support Democrats over the past eight years.

One bright spot for the GOP in New England has been their control of governorships. Republicans are governors in Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island.

"A big part of our strategy this cycle was to link Republican incumbents with the failed policies of the Bush administration and it's not applicable in a governor's race," James said. "But certainly President Bush damaged the Republican brand across the board." [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I think New England Republicans expected a lot more of George Bush, and what he delivered was not what they were wanting.

It's a good article that covers a lot of points, it's worth reading the whole thing. It ends by saying that Yankee Republicans are more moderate than the Religious conservatives who have been trying to dominate the party; that moderate Republicans have no home in the GOP, and therefore, the brand is dead in New England. And 8 years of George Bush put the nails in the coffin, as evidenced in this last election.

It also talks about hopes for a Republican Revival in New England, but the national GOP would have to become more moderate, more open and expansive, to accommodate them. Right now, it's simply too small.
     

"Yes We Can!" becomes "Oui, nous pouvons!"

Has Obama's victory underscored racism in France? Some are saying yes:

French elites brandish anti-racist manifesto

PARIS – Inspired by Barack Obama, the French first lady and other leading figures say it's high time for France to stamp out racism and shake up a white political and social elite that smacks of colonial times.

A manifesto published Sunday — subtitled "Oui, nous pouvons!", the French translation of Obama's campaign slogan "Yes, we can!" — urges affirmative action-like policies and other steps to turn French ideals of equality into reality for millions of blacks, Arabs and other alienated minorities.

"Our prejudices are insidious," Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, a singer and wife of President Nicolas Sarkozy, said in an interview with the Journal du Dimanche newspaper, which published the manifesto. She said she hoped the "Obama effect" would reshape French society.

Nations across Europe rejoiced over Obama's victory, seeing it as a triumph for American democracy and a world weary of President George W. Bush. But Obama's election also illustrated an uncomfortable truth: how far European countries with big minority populations have to go getting nonwhites into positions of power.

[...]

The manifesto calls for affirmative action policies like those the United States used years ago to encourage greater minority representation in the workplace and in universities.

Sarkozy has suggested affirmative action for France, but later backed away from the idea since it goes against France's ideals of egalitarianism, which dictate that the country not classify its citizens according to race. This idea that everyone is just "French" means there are no census or other national figures calculating how big the country's minority groups are.

The manifesto urges term limits to make way for more minority candidates, and presses the government to improve schools in working-class neighborhoods. [...]

They have been talking the talk. Perhaps now they will have to walk the walk. Sarkozy's new wife, Italian singer-model Carla Bruni certainly seems to think so. She's quoted extensively throughout the article.

One large obstacle to affirmative action in socialist France has been the very powerful labor unions. They currently represent the white population. Will they change to allow more jobs to be created, or will they force older members to take early retirement? Or will they resist all change? It will be interesting to see what happens.
     

When is Adobe Flash not Adobe Flash?

When it's pretending to be an Adobe Flash Update, but really planting a Trojan:

Hackers leverage Obama win for massive malware campaign

November 5, 2008 (Computerworld) Hackers have seized on the results of the U.S. presidential election to launch a major malware campaign that tries to trick users into installing an update to Adobe Systems Inc.'s Flash, but actually plants a Trojan horse on unprotected PCs, security experts warned today.

The malware blitz stems from spam messages touting Sen. Barack Obama's victory last night, and offers up a link to what is supposedly a site sporting election results. When users click on the link, however, they're shunted to a fake site that demands the user install an update to Adobe's Flash Player before viewing a video.

Rather than a Flash update, what's actually downloaded is a Trojan horse that compromises the PC then floods the machine with more malware, said Dan Hubbard, vice president of security research at Websense Inc. "This is very coordinated," said Hubbard of the Obama-themed attacks, "with evidence that they planned this, then waited for the election results."

According to Hubbard, the hackers registered 15 to 20 domains yesterday to host the malware and fake site. All the domains are on so-called "fast flux" servers, Hubbard added, referring to the practice in which criminals rapidly switch domains between multiple IP addresses. Identity thieves often use the fast-flux tactic as a way to stay ahead of the law and prevent their servers from being shut down.

Hubbard called the attacks "the largest malicious e-mail campaign going," adding that Websense had tracked 100,000 individual copies of the scam message so far today. [...]

This isn't a partisan attack. The criminals doing this are using the Obama theme because at the moment Obama is a world-wide celebrity. Using people's interest in him like this gives them the biggest platform for these attacks.

While I'm not likely to be a victim by watching Obama videos, I still find it creepy. It seems like I'm often asked to update Adobe Flash, and I usually just hit the button without a second thought. Not anymore.
     

The Real Winner of the 2008 Election: Optimism

I wanted to do this post before the election, but time did not allow. But it's just as relevant now as before, with all the bickering going on as to why McCain lost the contest. Perhaps the better question is, why did Obama win?

Years ago I read a book called ""Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life" by Martin Seligman. Chapter 11 on the book, "Politics, Religion and Culture: A New Psychohistory" had a section that dealt with a study of the American Presidential elections, since 1900 up to 1988. Using a methodology to analyze speeches for optimistic/pessimistic content, they found patterns in that content and the resulting wins and losses. Out of 22 elections, 18 of them were won by the most optimistic candidate (the exceptions were believed to have mitigating factors, discussed in the book).

In 1988, the researchers decided to apply this methodology of speech analysis to see if they could predict an election based on the optimism content of the speeches.

Their predictions worked for the primaries in both parties, accurately predicting not only the winners but also the order of the follow up contenders.

It was reported on in the NY Times. Both parties got wind of this, and requested the data. It was shared with them, in the belief that they probably wouldn't take it seriously anyway. But surprisingly, Dukakis's acceptance speech at the DNC reflected a huge increase in optimism, and sent him soaring in the polls. It was rumored that Theodore Sorenson - the great speechwriter for John F. Kennedy - had been exhumed to draft it.

If Dukakis had kept the optimism up, it might have made a difference. But it seems his acceptance speech was not the real Dukakis. The rest of his speeches throughout the fall reverted back to his former style, which was not as optimistic as his opponent's. Analysis of the speeches showed that George Bush would win, and he did.

An analysis was done for this year's election as well. This article appeared Oct. 1st, and was written with about six weeks left to go till Nov. 4th:

Optimism Experts Handicap the Presidential Election With About Six Weeks Remaining Until Nov. 4

October 1, 2008

By: Office of University Communications

PHILADELPHIA –- With less than six weeks until the general election, a University of Pennsylvania study analyzing the relative optimism of the 2008 presidential and vice presidential candidates has found Barack Obama and John McCain to be equally optimistic and Sarah Palin slightly more optimistic than Joseph Biden.

Researchers have determined that the most optimistic candidates win more than 80 percent of presidential elections dating back to 1900. How optimism confers this electoral advantage is unclear, but Penn psychologists believe optimistic candidates inspire hope in the electorate and try harder, particularly when faced with a challenge.

The study, conducted by researchers from Penn’s Positive Psychology Center, analyzed speeches given at the Saddleback Forum on Faith and the candidates’ respective convention acceptance speeches to determine levels of optimism.

“Although our initial report suggests this election is too close to call, shifts in optimism and rhetoric over the next few weeks may very well predict which side emerges as the victor,” Stephen Schueller, lead analyst on the project and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology at Penn, said.

As a group, the vice-presidential candidates are less optimistic than the presidential candidates, with Biden by far the most pessimistic of the four.

In addition, Republican candidates, according to the study, show a higher level of internality when explaining positive events and a lower level of internality when explaining negative events. Put simply, they accept credit for good events and blame others as the cause for negative outcomes.

While speeches analyzed for the study were scripted, more instances of impromptu speech — such as the debates — can provide additional material to look for shifts and changes in optimism as the election draws.

“With news of the national economic crisis, the upcoming weeks will provide further material to draw from because attributions about economic matters offer a rich source of data,” Andrew Rosenthal, project coordinator with the Positive Psychology Center, said. [...]

I was not able to find a follow up to this study. It seems that up to this point Obama and McCain were neck to neck on the optimism score. But with the financial crisis breaking just then, and the Republican Base pressuring McCain to attack Obama more forcefully, I can only wonder if either of those may have altered the optimism dynamics in Obama's favor? It would be interesting to see, if they publish the remainder of their analysis.


Related Links:

Why Obama was elected

authentichappiness.org
     

It's an Obama Nation

I resisted the temptation to use "Obamanation" in the title of this post. It would have been a snarky cheap shot, and I don't want to be unnecessarily negative. I'm not going to start kicking the guy before he even lifts a finger to do anything. A big shift is happening, and I'm watching closely. And while I may not be thrilled with the outcome of this election, There It Is. I don't believe in wasting time arguing with What Is.

If John McCain can congratulate Mr. Obama, I guess so can I. Congratulations, Mr. Obama. I'll be saying my prayers for you, that you are guided to make wise decisions.

Perhaps Mr. Obama will be more flexible as POTUS than some of us have believed. We shall see. I can remember thinking he flip-flops on too many issues. Now ironically, I can only hope that he does! I had wondered if his extreme associations were more political expediency for climbing up in the Democrat party, rather than his personal preferences. Now I'm hoping that's true. Michelle Obama has a nice smile when she uses it; perhaps she will smile more now. And we can also now look forward to years of entertaining remarks by VP Joe Biden.

I believe in making lemonade out of lemons. I'm going to do my best to make the most of this, whether it's lemonade, lemon juice, ice tea or lemon-scented floor wax. We work with what we have. We make the most of it. We encourage the best in every situation. That is America.

John McCain ran a good campaign under very difficult conditions. I see Uber Conservatives like Michelle Malkin are already squawking that we lost because we ran a RHINO. Amazing. This isn't the 1980's or the '90s. The wind changed direction a long time ago. There is a HUGE shift happening politically, throughout the world. It's a shift to the left. The Republican party, as we knew it, has been left behind. If it can re-group into something viable, it won't be like it was. Get used to it. Change IS coming. If the Republicans want to be a part of it, in any MEANINGFUL way, they will have to adapt. Or be marginalized into oblivion.

Change comes when it will. Tomorrow is another day. Politics is politics. This too will pass, whether you want it to or not. Life goes on, and it's still good. Remember to count your blessings!

Guess Who I Voted For?

Instead of spreading wealth around, John McCain & Sarah Palin will spread opportunity.

Barack Obama will raise taxes on hardworking Americans to give a government handout to the 40% of Americans who pay no income taxes.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have an economic plan that celebrates the American dream of opportunity, not government giveaways. In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. While Barack Obama is ready to "spread the wealth around," John McCain has a plan to get our economy moving so everyone has access to good jobs, a quality education and the opportunity to succeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin don't just talk about change ... they deliver.

The next President won't have time to get used to the office. America faces many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We need a new direction, and John McCain and Sarah Palin will fight for it.

We can trust John McCain and Sarah Palin because they are reformers with a record who stand by their words and will always put their country first.

Time and time again this team of mavericks has stood up, taken on tough issues and delivered. They're the real deal. They have a clear record that can deliver results, not just rhetoric that delivers votes. [...]


The above text is from JohnMcCain.com, you can follow the link for a break down of where the McCain/Palin ticket stands on the issues.

I voted Monday of last week. I won't be watching the talking heads today, I've got work on the farm to do.
     

Obama/Biden plan for the coal industry

Why are we only hearing about this now?

Obama Threatens to Bankrupt Coal Industry



The Democrats are against us developing our own energy resources, because they want to weaken America, so they can then offer themselves and bigger government as the solution, and exert more control over US.

Be careful what you vote for. You just might get it.

Do we want or need Obama's government funded and controlled "Civilian Security Force"?

A force that is to be as powerful as our own military? To what ends? It's called a "Force" for a reason.

LGF:
Obama's 'Civilian National Security Force'

American Thinker:
Obama's Civilian National Security Force

Gateway Pundit:
Obama's Plans For Marxist-like National Civilian Security Force Back in the News

If a Republican tried to start and fund something this massive, it would be shot down in flames. But all things are possible for The One. The Far Left Democrats who dominate the party currently don't mind excessive power, so long as they are the ones directing and wielding it. Given Obama's record for using all means possible to silence his critics, and his associations with people given to using brute force, this does not bode well.

I'm not saying it would necessarily become something like Hitler's Brownshirts. But it wouldn't have to. "Politically Correct Thought Police" would be Orwellian enough to unnerve me. No matter how much you believe in Obama's good intentions behind this, surely it's not hard to see the potential for great abuse of such a force? Not to mention, expense. No doubt two reasons why no one else has been pushing the idea.

Will the Main Stream Media be responsible for a November Surprise tomorrow?

Victor Davis Hanson has an article today called The End of Journalism, where he states that "Sometime in 2008, journalism as we knew it died, and advocacy media took its place." The media has been biased for quite some time, but his year, they haven't even bothered to make the pretense of being unbiased. They have decided for us.

In blogging for this election, I've spent a lot of my time blogging about Obama, and the things about him the MSM failed to report on. The sad part of that is, I would have much rather spent my time talking about the advantages of a McCain/Palin ticket, instead of trying to make up for the deficiencies, lies and distortions of the MSM.

I see the photos of huge numbers of people at McCain/Palin rallies, at JohnMcCain.com. I look for the rallies on the MSM, and they aren't there. But the lies and distortions are.

Most people get their news from the MSM, not blogs. If McCain/Palin manages to win, it will be because it's what the majority of American people really want, despite the efforts of so many in the media to manipulate the outcome.

If Obama looses, and riots ensue as some are predicting, it will be the MSM who is responsible, for building up false expectations.

Republicans have not been the ones committing voter registration fraud, accepting illegal campaign contributions and bullying critics into silence. The MSM has not only failed to report substantially on these and other things, but have focused their resources on publishing skewed polls and erroneous stories presented as facts. All in support of their Chosen One.

No matter who wins this, the MSM will have a great deal to answer for. We should all be holding them accountable. Real journalism, that scrutinizes and reports on ALL the candidates, needs to live again.


Related Links:

Voter registration fraud and the Democrat Activists who work and lie to perpetuate it

23,000 attend McCain/Palin rally in Virginia

MSM does their best to Kill the Messenger

Palin and the Negligent Malevolence of the MSM

Obama Thugs go after NRO Journalist

Barack Obama; the larger, complete picture

When you can't debate, restrict your opponent
     

Bullet points on the eve of the election

No, I don't mean bullets aimed at any of the candidates, but a bullet point summary of things to consider tomorrow, from Neal Boortz:


WHERE DO YOU START?

I chose that opening line rather than "what's the use." Election day is tomorrow, so there's definitely a chance here to prevent perhaps irreparable harm to our Republic ... maybe not a huge chance ... but a chance.

Never in the last 100 years has someone so completely inexperienced and so far to the left been so close to becoming our president. It is beyond imagination that we've come to this.

I really don't have the time before I go on the air to craft (if that's the word) a lengthy narrative on this campaign and the importance of our vote tomorrow ... so we go with bullet points. They don't necessarily flow together all that well ... but each gets a point across that is, I think, important.

Who knows ... maybe someone will read some of these points and tell themselves that they just can't pull the trigger for this dangerous leftist when they get into the voting booth. Others will read this and just have their feelings about how much trouble freedom and economic liberty in this country are in totally reinforced.

• One question about Obama that has never been satisfactorily answered is "What has he ever accomplished?" The best his supporters can come up with is "He was elected to the U.S. Senate." So was John McCain ... several times. Besides, take a look at his election. He had two opponents self-destruct with scandal. The GOP had to go to Maryland and talk Alan Keyes into moving to Illinois to run against Obama. Trust me, that win was no sterling accomplishment.
  
  
• Don't argue with me here. You'll lose. There is NO constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. We're going to learn in a few days just how smart our founding fathers were in this regard.
  
  
• Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. Several times during his political career Obama had a chance to either cast a vote or make a statement against the corruption that permeates Chicago's machine. Never – not on one occasion – did he do so.
  
  
• The fact is, Obama has benefited from corruption (Tony Rezko?) but has never fought it.
  
  
• Do you know how Obama won his first election in Illinois? He had campaign operatives go to the voting office and work hundreds of hours pouring over petitions to have his opponents thrown off the ballot. I guess that means that this is the first real election battle he's ever been in!
  
  
• I guess it's just me, but all this time I thought that the government used its power to seize property ... i.e., to tax ... in order to fund the necessary and appropriate functions of government. Now, under Obama, we've learned that one of the appropriate functions of government is to take from those who have and give to those who have not. I prefer a different phraseology: Take from those who achieve, and give to those who achieve not. Karl Marx was of a like mind.
  
  
• Obama's "spread the wealth around" mantra means that he believes that we do not leave our homes every morning to work for ourselves and our families. We leave our homes to work for the government. We belong to government, not to ourselves. The government will determine how much of the money we earn we deserve to keep .. the rest goes to people the government believes to be even more deserving of the fruits of our labors.
  
  
• Obama's candidacy would have faltered before an educated electorate. Why do you think Democrats love government schools so much? Do you want examples? I've got examples.
  
  
• Obama says he's going to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. Americans don't realize that over 40% of their numbers don't pay income taxes; and since they don't realize that, they aren't asking themselves how Obama can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
  
  
• Obama has effectively change the definition of "tax cut." From now on any government handout to any worker is a tax cut. Changing this definition may well be one of their greatest accomplishments in this election and that new definition will cause us problems for decades.
  
  
• Obama constantly rants about those dirty corporations who shipped "our jobs overseas." An educated voter knows that those jobs belong to the employers, not the employees. Workers look for jobs. Employers with jobs look for workers. Pretty simple, really.
  
  
• Obama also tells us that 95% of small businesses out there will not have their taxes increased. The only reason this line works is because our government educated voters cannot grasp the idea that it isn't the percentage of small businesses hit with tax increases that counts; it's the percentage of small business employees represented by the unfortunate 5% that counts. Tomorrow thousands of workers – perhaps tens of thousands of workers – employed by what we call "small businesses" will cast a vote that, a year or so down the road, will cost them their jobs.
  
  
• Over the weekend Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry if they tried to build any more coal-fired power plants. Can any of you think of a time when any president has ever made an overt threat to bankrupt a large American industry?
  
  
• Obama says that his "cap and trade" policy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost electricity prices to "skyrocket." Oops ... there goes some of that middle class "tax cut." Guess he'll have to transfer some more wealth to help his constituents pay the increased price.
  
  
• There are literally millions of Obama supporters out there who think that once Obama becomes the president their lives are going to become sweetness, roses and light. One woman at an Obama rally
  
  
• Remember Obama's 30-minute infomercial? If a foreigner with no knowledge of our country or our people were to see that program they would think that America was a country mired in abject misery and depravation. Thanks, Obama, for the nice positive message.
  
  
• How long after the election, whether Obama wins or loses, do you think it will take for that America-hater Jeremiah Wright to surface?
  
  
• The top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of all income taxes. The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes. When these people don't want to give up a larger share of their earnings Obama call's them "selfish."
  
  
• When someone is content to sit on their butts and wait for Obama to transfer some wealth from someone else to their pockets they are not "selfish."
  
  
• Every one of the points I am bringing up here is "hate speech" to an Obamacon.
  
  
• The great Democrat goal is to have more than 50% of the voters living, at least in part, on the efforts of the minority of voters. When we pass that tipping point ... and we're nearly there ... game over.
  
  
• In every election since 1952 Democrats have told the voters "vote for the Republicans and they'll take your Social Security away." In every election after 2008 the Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay taxes." Then if Obama wins again, in every election after 2012 Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you pay for your own Social Security and Medicare." How long before we hear: "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you work for a living!"
  
  
• Obama will definitely destroy your right to be armed outside of your own home for your own protection. The question is whether we count the time until he accomplishes this in days, weeks, months or years.
  
  
• Do you see now why politicians, especially Democrats, aren't fond of the FairTax? Without playing his tax scam and wealth envy card Obama would have been toast by Super Tuesday.
  
  
• Surveys in Israel show that 76% of Israeli citizens want McCain to win. American Jews will vote for Obama by pretty much the same percentage. What do Jews in Israel know that Jews in America do not?
  
  
• Peter Nicholas is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He has been traveling with Obama for almost the entire campaign. Nicholas writes "After all this time with him, I still can't say with certainty who he is." Nicholas doesn't know him, but so many voters are so sure they do.
  
  
• Obama wants a national civilian security force that, in his words, is "just as strong as our military." Who would they serve under? What would their mandate be? Would they be unionized? (oh HELL yes!). Would this be like the Soviet Union under Communism where neighbors ratted on neighbors for anti-government statements? And what does he mean "as strong as our military?" Would this national civilian security force have nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? Are we just talking about a glorified national police? (Show us your papers!)
  
  
• Obama has talked about reducing spending on our military. One leading Democrat Senator has suggested a 25% spending cut on defense. Do you feel comfortable with that? You do know that all of the savings would be spent on buying votes, don't you?
  
  
• Do you home school your children? Obama has called home schooling a fraud. Put him in office and you'll be putting your kids back in government schools for their indoctrination.
  
  
• Do you run a small business? If Obama wins start planning immediately to lower your work force. The best way to do this would be through efficiency measures and temporary staffing agencies. Not only is Obama going to make it easier for your workers to unionize ... he's going to expand onerous measures such as the Family Leave Act. You will end up paying your employees a good portion of their salary to lay out for weeks on end.
  
  
• Maybe you shop at Wal-Mart. Get ready for higher prices. Obama's instant unionization bill will surely result in the unionization of Wal-Mart's workforce. In fact, as much as Democrat politicians hate Wal-Mart, it's safe to say that Wal-Mart is target number one. The result? Higher prices for you. If Obama can call a government handout a tax cut, we can call higher prices a tax increase. This will be Obama's tax increase on the poor and the middle class.
  
  

OK ... run with those. We'll come up with more. In the meantime ... some details:

I THOUGHT OBAMA WANTED TO CREATE JOBS ...

Barack Obama grand stands about his plans to create jobs in America. He claims that he is going to create millions of "green" jobs. What he doesn't tell you is that he wants to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coal industry. And he doesn't say this to the workers in Ohio or Pennsylvania ... he goes and says this in San Francisco – the same place he went to complain about ordinary bitter people clinging to their guns or religion.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January of this year, Obama says that he intends to bankrupt the coal industry. Keep in mind that last year, more than 120,000 Americans were employed by the coal industry. Also keep in mind that 49% of energy in this country is currently generated by coal. But what Obama wants to do is institute an aggressive cap-and-trade policy where "polluters" will be charged for every unit of emissions.

He says, "If someone wants to build a coal power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being admitted."

So we are about to elect a man who has openly admitted his intentions to bankrupt an entire industry.

Then this video from 2007 shouldn't come as a shock ... Obama wants "price signals" (on energy) in order to "change behavior." He acknowledges that his cap-and-trade policies will increase costs for consumers, and yet he still wants to do it. However, don't you worry, he does want the government (aka. the taxpayers) to help out the poor people who will have to pay these higher prices, thanks to government caps. And for "those of you who can afford it" you are going to have to pay more for electricity. That's convenient.

HOW ABOUT ANOTHER OBAMA VIDEO

Back in 2003 when Obama was running for Senate (unopposed), he said that he was opposed to the Bush tax cuts for "people who didn't need then and didn't ask for them." That's original. But then he goes on to say that we should have given a tax cut to working families ... okay, that sounds like what we've heard on the presidential campaign trail. But then he continues to say that these "working families" would be those making 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year. Hmmm $70,000 is a long ways from the $250,000 that Obama started with in his presidential run. Now that figure is creeping further and further down.

Speaking of taxes ...

THE LATEST LINE ... SELFISHNESS

Just days before the election, this is Obama's stump speech ... that John McCain and Sarah Palin have made a virtue out of "selfishness."

This is the mentality of the next president of the United States. See if you can follow:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich ... I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That's the American dream, that's the American way, that's terrific. The point is, though, that -- and it's not just charity, it's not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it's that when we actually make sure that everybody's got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody's got decent health care, when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise ..."

Then he comes up with this line: "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic ... You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

So there you go. Now, if you do not want the government to take your wealth and redistribute it to people who don't pay taxes, this makes you a selfish person. On the other hand, if you do not work and you want the government to take money from someone who does and give it to you, you are not selfish. Not even greedy – whatever that is.

If you want to talk about selfish, why not take a look at statistics which clearly show that Conservatives – those who would most likely not support Obama's spread the wealth mentality – donate more to charity. Even though liberal households tend to have incomes, conservatives households give 30% more to charity than the average liberal household. And guess what? It didn't take the force of government to do that.

OBAMA'S AUNTI

The story of Obama's poor aunt continues. Now the Obama campaign is returning her campaign contributions because it turns out that she is living illegally in the United States. A few questions though ...

If Obama's own aunt, who is an illegal alien, was able to donate to the Obama campaign ... how many other illegal contributions have been made and yet to be vetted?

Also, notice how this story was quickly changed by the mainstream media. The story was not about the aunt, her illegal status, or her illegal campaign contributions ... it became about whether or not this was a ploy of the McCain campaign or the Bush administration.

That's the media line. Any negative story about Obama just has to be something planted by the evil Republicans.

Sunday Funnies, 11-02-08

The following two videos I got in my email. These are the versions posted on YouTube. The first one is called "speedbump", it's from a German TV commercial, I think (1 minute and 10 seconds):




This next one is your Sunday "Aaawww". A man sings his puppy dogs to sleep (1 minute, 40 seconds):




And lastly, a bit of bipartisan fun. Former First Ladies, as Dogs (1 minute, 39 seconds):

Rain, Fowl Dramas and Power Supplies

I haven't been posting lately, for a couple of reasons. Getting the farm ready for winter has meant putting extra effort into completing a few projects before the rains start happening full force.

There have also been some dramas with our fowls. Our flying Mallards completed their fall molt, and began to fly. We had clipped their wings when we first got them a year ago, so they would not fly away. But now that they were used to this being their home, I thought it would be safe to not clip them. It was glorious, having them fly around the farm, then spiraling down around me for a landing. I was hoping to video tape it for the blog. But last Wednesday, they flew over the house and vanished. At sunset, the male returned by himself.

Dilly, Dally and Dolly before their Fall molt.
As of Wednesday, it's been "Goodbye Dolly".
I can't know what happened to the female. I think she would have come back if she could, so I fear the worst. So it seems we've learned the hard way that we need to keep their wings clipped. We clipped the drake, so he will stay and keep our female runner duck company, and not risk getting shot or eaten by something.

Then on Halloween, a hawk attacked our bantams, I heard the commotion and got out the front door just in time to see it about to get one of the nine baby chicks. I chased it off, but a count of the chicks showed that there were only eight left. I didn't see it fly off with a carcass, and I couldn't find a body, so I wasn't sure what to think. Much later in the day, a recount showed that there were nine chicks, so one must have been hiding really well.

There's been several things I've wanted to blog about regarding the election, but my computer is having problems. I think it's the power supply, it seems to be overheating, and probably needs to be replaced. All things considered, I haven't been on-line as much as I'd like. I'll have to try to get it all sorted out soon.