Another Suggestion for Our Future Democrat Overlords

If Obama wins the presidency and the Democrats take over a fillibuster-proof majority in Congress, I suspect that they will add at least two seats to the Supreme Court. There's no need to wait for retirements or deaths for the revisionists to get a majority in our highest court.

The number nine is not set in the Constitution, after all. The number of seats is up to Congress. It started with six seats, then gradually increased to ten as the number of lower courts increased. In the 1860s, that connection was tossed and the number of seats went back down to seven. But in 1869, Congress put it to nine, where it has remained ever since.

Franklin Roosevelt tried to add six justices to the Supreme Court, but Congress blocked it. I don't think a President Obama would have such opposition.

Consistently Bad

Is there anything more annoying than a double-parked hybrid?

Vote for Gramm!

From what I've heard of what Phil Gramm said this week, I just want everyone to know that I agree with him.

Thanks to the Liberal mentality, we have become a nations of whiners, incapable of taking responsibility for our personal actions. We always blame someone else and expect the government to take care of us.

Thanks to the news media, we are in a mental recession -- not a real recession, but just in our heads, thanks to the news media pounding gloom and doom into our brains every hour of every day.

And so, when John McCain denounced Gramm's words, it really made me throw in the towel on the Arizona senator. I never liked his PC-pandering liberal streak, and I never will.

I won't vote for McCain.

Don't Submit!

There are people out there who despise the American way of life. They long for simpler times when life wasn't so complicated. These times never truly existed in history, but that doesn't stop them from fantasizing.

These people fall into two categories: hippies and Islamists.

Hippies, I can deal with. They don't want to kill me.

The Islamists, on the other hand, plan on killing each and every one of us, if we don't meekly obey their every command. They want a world-wide theocracy. It's how they expect to reach salvation. It's for their religion. It's from their religion. And if anyone gets in their way, the Koran tells the Islamists to kill the infidels.

And so they do.

Our only options are to surrender and to fight. Anything half-and-half would be detrimental. Either give up and most of us get to live (in slavery, more or less), or fight and stay free.

Which would you choose?

I say fight. Some will die, true, but at least they'll know in their hearts they sacrificed themselves for the lives and freedom of their loved ones. In our current wishy-washy, half-submit, half-fight scenario, our soldiers don't know if their sacrifices will be worth it. They don't know if our government will surrender before the job is done, and so our soldiers worry for their loved ones, uncertain of the future.

Our future should be clear. We should never retreat. We should never surrender to the Islamists. We should never submit.

Tired of Al Gore, et al?

When next you have a spare hour (or maybe you should just make time), watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, from Britain's Channel 4.

If you hadn't guessed, it's a step-by-step refutation of the "global warming" hoax. With nifty graphics.

Yay, Sarko!

Just when you thought Europe (and especially France) had gone over the edge and were beyond salvation, the French go and elect a pro-American president!

I just hope that the parliamentary elections in a month go the same way. Otherwise, he might have trouble getting his reforms enacted.

Everything I've read about the French government's stranglehold on businesses and "tolerance" for criminals has left me utterly devoid of hope for the French people. But just maybe, they've seen the results of those cushy liberal policies and have realized their country needs an abrupt change of direction.

Britain's having an election soon, too, right? Go Tories!

Wonderful Book; Wonderful Title

Now here's a must-read, award-winning book: The Stray Shopping Carts of Eastern North America: A Guide to Field Identification. It has vivid color photographs. A reviewer on Amazon says it's "one of the most complete and well thought-out works I have ever encountered." Sounds like the perfect read!

But what is the award it won? The Diagram Prize for oddest book title of the year.

Yup. It won an award from people who hadn't even read the book. Talk about judging a book by its cover.

Second place was the slightly more serious Tattooed Mountain Women and Spoon Boxes of Daghestan, while third place went to the progressive nihilistic (and dangerously serious) Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.

Liberals Need Someone to Listen

Women tend to be liberals and men tend to be conservatives.

When women complain, men often strive to find solutions to these problems. The women don't expect solutions, however, but instead only want to vent their frustrations.

Liberals complain about all sorts of things without proposing solutions. Conservatives have solutions for everything, right or wrong.

The next time liberals go off on something (Global Warming, the G***** W** on T*****, Bushitler, etc.), conservatives should just smile sympathetically and say, "I understand." The liberals don't really expect a solution from the conservatives. They just want to vent.

PS: I love you, Chunlin.

Scientific Consensus of the Non-Scientists

I happened across an article from last July at LiveScience.com that presents twelve viewpoints on "Global Warming."

The interviewed individuals include several professors, some scientists, and a former vice-president. As I read, I discovered that the individuals with climate science backgrounds tended to have differing opinions about "Global Warming" than, say, the psychology professor.

Here is a list of their qualifications, in order of believability based on background:

1. Hurricane expert and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University.
2. Professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
3. Professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton University.
4. Professor of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, State Climatologist for Virginia.
5. Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
6. Professor in the Department of the Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago.
7. Associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
8. Professor of geography at the University of California in Berkeley.
9. Associate professor of history and Director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
10. Senior research scientist, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University.
11. Former vice-president.
12. Professor of psychology at Harvard University.

1. The hurricane expert has been studying this stuff for decades. He's extremely skeptical of those who say humans are causing global warming. His main point is that the world heats and cools and heats and cools and it's natural.

2. The meteorology professor bashes the press and politicians for alarmism and for trying to justify costly Enviromentalist policies.

3. The professor emeretius says that climate change is partly caused by humans, but "its importance has been grossly exaggerated," and then he goes on to complain about all the other ills of civilization that are being ignored.

Skip down to #9, the history professor: "Many people have the impresson that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest." After reading the words of the above three scientists, you'd think he would be agreeing with them, but no. He continues, "We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it."

You gotta believe him. After all, he's a professor of history.

I won't even bother to mention what the politician and psychologist say. I'm sure you can guess.

Liberal Death Cult Expands to Include Polar Bears

Did you hear the news? Some "animal rights" activists are insisting a zoo should kill a polar bear cub -- for its own good!

It's one thing to kill an innocent fetus or an unwanted comatose relative, but I thought for sure that the death-cult progressives would stop at nothing to protect an animal.

I guess not:

"Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht was quoted as saying by the mass-circulation Bild daily, which has featured regular photo spreads tracking fuzzy Knut's frolicking.

"The zoo must kill the bear."

When Mr Albrecht was cornered about his statements, he changed his tune:

Albrecht told The Associated Press his beliefs were more nuanced than reported by Bild, though he applauded the debate the article had started.

He explained that though he thought it was wrong of the zoo to have saved the cub's life, now that the bear can live on his own, it would be equally wrong to kill him.

"If a polar bear mother rejected the baby, then I believe the zoo must follow the instincts of nature," Albrecht said. "In the wild, it would have been left to die."

Well, okay. He didn't change his tune all that much.

Carbon! Carbon! Carbon!

Carbon dioxide contributes to a quarter of 1% of the earth's greenhouse effect. But for some reason, Environmentalists want to blame it (and thus humankind) for "Global Warming."

The problem with this is that there is no correlation between the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atomosphere with the rate of increase/decrease of the air temperature.



So is there anything that correlates with the air temperature? Why, sure! It's the sun. When the sun emits more heat, the earth's air warms up.




Seems simple enough, if you ask me.

But why, then, is the carbon dioxide level going sky high? Surely that's caused by humankind!

Alas, no. There's a long-term correlation between air temperature and carbon dioxide, but the carbon dioxide increases/decreases a few hundred years after the temperature. Yeah, you heard me. The Environmentalists have their cause and effect completely switched.


Note that the time scale is in 1000s of years. Between red lines is approximately 100,000 years.
If the carbon dioxide is rising quickly right now, was there a corresponding air temperature increase a few hundred years ago?



Yes. The earth was just then beginning to come out of the "Little Ice Age."

So what does it all mean? Will humankind destroy the planet by driving SUVs? My answer: nah, probably not.

(ht: Moonbattery)

Polar Bears Just Fine, Thank You

Despite the UN and liberal Environmentalists around the world declaring that polar bears are threatened because of "Global Warming," the truth is that polar bear populations are growing in areas with warmer weather.

In regions such as Baffin Island, which is experiencing colder weather like neighboring Greenland, the polar bear populations are decreasing.

Therefore, if we really want to save the polar bears, we need to heat up the atmosphere world-wide!

If only there were a way for humans to affect the climate. . .

(ht: Moonbattery)

Voters' Pamphlet, page 42

My favorite section of this election's pamphlet is the race for State Representative from the 43rd Legislative District, Position 1. Position 2 is pretty good, too, but only as spice to the Position 1 race.

The 43rd District comprises the heart of Seattle: Downtown, Capitol Hill, Eastlake, Madison Park, Fremont, Wallingford, Ravenna, and the U-District. Included are the neighborhoods that fight each other for the title of "most insanely liberal."

The current holder of Position 1, Ed Murray (D), is running for State Senator from the same district. The current 43rd District Senator, Pat Thibaudeau (D), isn't running for anything this year. Maybe she lost the primary and I didn't notice.

For Position 1, we have three candidates: Jamie Pedersen (D), a clean-cut, 37-year-old man (who is a lawyer and "community leader"); Hugh Foskett (R), a spiky-haired UW sophomore majoring in math; and Linde Knighton (Progressive), a gray-haired, round-faced, elderly woman.

So the Democrat is the status-quo mainstreamer. The Republican is the young up-and-comer. And the Progressive is the kind old lady. Or so it seems from appearances.

Foskett (R) is running on education and the environment, which certainly are not the usual conservative fare (taxes and transportation would be that, for these races). The oldest candidate, Knighton, wants to turn the political and cultural system on its ear. And Pedersen strongly hints at his homosexuality twice in his short blurb.

I predict the Democrat, Pedersen, will win 60% of the vote. Two years ago, the Democrats won 87% and 85% for Positions 1 and 2 in the 43rd District.

Oh, and what about Position 2? The incumbent, Frank Chopp (D), a friendly looking middle-aged man, is being challenged by Will "Chopper" Sohn (R), a UW junior who just happens to have the same campaign address as Hugh Foskett.

I wish the young friends the best of luck. They're gonna need it.

Voters' Pamphlet

Here's some opinion for you, if you live in Washington State. Or maybe I should make it a royal decree. . .

In any case, there's not much on the statewide ballot this year.

United States Senator: MIKE MCGAVICK.
I'd like to be able to endorse the Libertarian, but Guthrie is just too weak on defense. What does he think the federal government is for, anyway? (The incumbent Democrat, Cantwell, was never an option. I mean, come on.)

Justice of the Supreme Court: STEPHEN JOHNSON.
The incumbent, Owens, is endorsed by a long list of traditional liberals. Stephen Johnson is endorsed by a long list of conservatives, but also some Democrats. So who do you think is claiming bipartisan support?

Oh, and Stephen Johnson is a friend/acquaintance of my parents.

Initiative Measure 920: YES.
Taxes are bad. Taxes on dead people are even worse.

Initiative Measure 933: YES.
Government regulations on private property have gotten out of hand. Some landowners aren't allowed to use the vast majority of their parcels due the various environmental regulations. That's just crazy. If we the people value a piece of land enough to protect it from development, we'd better be willing to put a monetary amount to that value and pay up.

Initiative Measure 937: NO.
Electric companies should encourage their customers to conserve energy, but the government should not *force* them to do so.

House Joint Resolution 4223: YES.
At first I thought this was a pointless law, but then I realized that it will help small business owners. If this is approved, they'll be able to quintuple their tax exemptions on office equipment. I just hope nobody abuses it. . .

Okay, so I guess there were several items on the statewide ballot. Oh well.

VOTE LIKE I TELL YOU TO!

Yee-haw!

Rice University has basically told a racist group to shut up and go away. At least that's my interpretation. The Houston Chronicle describes it as "Rice gets failing grade for diversity."

The Black Coaches Association wanted documents related to the recent hiring process of Rice's new football head coach, to make sure that Rice did everything in their power to hire a person of African-American heritage. Rice told them, "No. We're a private institution. That's sensitive information. Go away."

The BCA gave Rice a failing grade automatically, just because Rice turned them away. Kinda spitefuly, wouldn't you say?

And, of course, the BCA didn't just go away. They and the researchers have kept hounding Rice's athletic department, and Rice has stopped replying to their emails or their phone calls.

Can't these guys take a hint?

Why not Seattle?

In a Vermont town called Brattleboro, teenagers (of both sexes) have been hanging out in the nude all summer. There are no laws against public nudity, but some locals are concerned it will give Brattleboro a bad name and drive away business.

But I wonder, if teens in a rural blue state like Vermont feel free to walk around town naked, why does this not happen in an uber-blue city like Seattle? I mean, we don't even have any clothing-optional beaches!

This city is a lot more conservative than it thinks it is.

Killing Is Wrong

A simple answer to complex problems, good for many political debates: Killing is wrong.

Use liberally when discussing abortion, Islamic fascism, euthanasia, gun control, capital punishment, etc.

For example: "Killing is wrong, therefore good people need to carry guns to protect themselves from bad people who otherwise might kill them."

Or: "Killing is wrong, therefore if you kill somebody, you forfeit your right to exist."

It's true that not all debates can be argued this way. For some, you'll have to revert to "All men are created equal" or "humans are more important than other species." But those aren't as definitive, so try to stick to arguments where you can use the "killing is wrong" slogan.

"Sisters in front!"

I walked over to the local mosque just now to take a look at the Peace March. They were, of course, running late. In fact, the Muslim contingent was still quietly filing out of the mosque.

Overall, the march seemed quite innocuous, full of naive idealists (and Muslims supporting their "sisters" and "brothers" in Lebanon). No Israel=Nazi signs like you get at similar protests in California and wherever. Seattle is just too polite for that sort of thing.

A woman handed out cardboard flags with Lebanon's printed on one side and Old Glory on the other, with the words "United We Stand" on the red bars of the Lebanese flag (in English and Arabic (I assume that's what it said)).

I counted about a dozen uniformed police, on foot, motorcycles, and bicycles. I counted about a half-dozen reporters and media photographers, most of them poised a block down the street to capture the oncoming horde (100 to 150 marchers). The county has people with walkie-talkies keeping an eye on things so they can tell the buses when to start re-routing.

The media awaits:


Rally in the parking lot:


The mosque entrance:


Our police, biding their time:


Muslims and moonbats mingling:

If I remember correctly, the man on the left in the tan shirt was the one directing traffic to get people organized. "Sisters in front!" he called out, trying to put a friendly face on this little parade.

At least this man is even-handed:

Oh wait. Do you think he means the Israelis are the terrorists? Nah.

This elderly moonbat asked me to take his photo with his own camera:

It looks like Israel and Afghanistan were added as afterthoughts. At least he has Darfur on there, which is where the Arabs are the unequivical agressors against the non-Muslims. And neither side there trusts the UN. I wonder why.

Many identical signs:


Fun for the whole family:

The slash-"violence" sign was another mass-produced one.

March spokesman and a journalist who's dressed almost as a parody of herself:


Some more mass-produced signs, ready for anyone:


I didn't bother to see what this man's petition said:

From what his sign says, he seems oblivious to the fact that the Palestinians want to push the Jews into the sea.

Our famed bike cops, waiting:


The whole thing seemed too boring, so I left and walked back to my office.

Failure Should Never Be Rewarded

Whether it's Hezbollah and their badly aimed rockets, or a coworker that missed a deadline, or a child's soccer team that lost a game, don't reward failure. It merely reinforces unwanted behavior. Don't take them out for ice cream until they win a game, or else they'll never bother trying to win. Let them explain to the client why the deadline was missed, or else they'll never meet a deadline ever again. Treat the terrorists as if they actually hit their intended targets, or else they'll just keep shooting and killing.

Well, okay. Attempted murder shouldn't receive as harsh a penalty as actual murder. But all I'm saying is that you shouldn't give a guy a new car and a million dollars just because he failed to kill his intended target.

And that's exactly how people with the European/Liberal worldview seem to want to treat Hezbollah, et al.

Baghdad Jim

Three weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (HR 921) which supported Israel's right to defend itself against its enemies (Hezbollah, Hamas). I noticed that my representative (who I would never vote for) voted against the resolution. He was one of eight "no" votes.

So I asked him why.

He finally responded today. Here is his reply, in full:

Dear Mark:

Thank you for your recent communication regarding the conflict between Israel and the terrorist forces of Hezbollah and Hamas. These attacks make it even more urgent for our government to pursue an even-handed foreign policy in the Middle East, a goal that has yet to be embraced by the House of Representatives.

Recently, the House voted to pass House Resolution 921, which guaranteed American support for Israeli military action anywhere in the Middle East. One clause in the resolution said that we "support Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it." I have unwavering support for Israel, its safety, security and right to exist, but I also know from experience how this kind of language can be interpreted. I voted against this bill because it is a blank check that could include such rash actions as a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

A resolution in the House of Representatives will not change what the world already knows about U.S. support for Israel's right to exist, but it might encourage what the world already fears: a wider war with greater casualties, undermining fragile but crucial support for Israel among Arab nations, and further endangering Israelis and other innocent civilians across the region.

As rockets continue to kill innocent civilians in both Southern Lebanon and Israel, lasting peace in the Middle East might seem like a pipe dream. The United States, however, cannot sit idly by and condone further killing on both sides of this conflict. At the recent talks in Rome, American diplomats failed to support a cease-fire proposal that was supported by the majority of the 15 other nations participating in the talks.

It is with this in mind that I have signed on to co-sponsor H. Con. Res. 450 calling for an immediate cessation of violence. We must use our influence as the world's only superpower to foster peace in the world's most violent regions.

Thank you for writing and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the 109th Congress continues.

Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Member of Congress

Maybe I should ask him what he thinks of Frank J's proposal.

Nah. Here's the response I sent him:

In the world, there are good guys and there are bad guys. Do not treat democratic, free nations as equal to repressive, theocratic regimes. If you truly want peace in the world, you must defeat the bad guys. Otherwise, we're just their dhimmis, bowing our heads till they chop them off.

Mark Knoke