I blame global warming

We are in the midst of our first big snow storm, full of "wintery mix." I think it's clearly the work of global warming.

Same with that Russian spy that was poisoned.

And Lindsay Lohan's illiterate letter of condolence to Robert Altman's family...it's all the result of America dependence on foreign oil.

We are also dependent on foreign christmas lights, foreign cheese, and foreign easily assembled furniture.

Solipsism

There is something about this blogging endeavor that brings out the egomaniacal freak in everyone. Kinsley writes about it in the Washington Post yesterday.

Blogging is the attempt by millions of insignificant moist robots to say something that means something to someone. It's fascinating and futile.

If you forgot how small you are, XO reminds us, here.

Koan of the Week--The Giver should be thankful

The Giver Should Be Thankful
While Seisetsu was the master of Engaku in Kamakura he required larger quarters, since those in which he was teaching were overcrowded. Umezu Seibei, a merchant of Edo, decided to donate five hundred pieces of gold called ryo toward the construction of a more commodious school. This money he brought to the teacher.
Seisetsu said: "All right. I will take it."
Umezu gave Seisetsu the sack of gold, but he was dissatisfied with the attitude of the teacher. One might live a whole year on three ryo, and the merchant had not even been thanked for five hundred.
"In that sack are five hundred ryo," hinted Umezu.
"You told me that before," replied Seisetsu.
"Even if I am a wealthy merchant, five hundred ryo is a lot of money," said Umezu.
"Do you want me to thank you for it?" asked Seisetsu.
"You ought to," replied Uzemu.
Why should I?" inquired Seisetsu. "The giver should be thankful."

I emptied myself

If you are easily grossed out, stop reading.

There is normally not a good reason to call in sick, if you are coughing and achy and running a fever, doing so on your couch at home is no different than doing so at your cube.

There is one situation where it makes sense to stay home when you aren’t feeling well---a nasty bout with the stomach flu. In order to qualify as a “nasty bout”, one has to spend over 8 hours lying on the bathroom floor simultaneously sweating and chilling while contemplating the great mysteries of life, like: if I haven’t eaten in over 12 hours, how could I possibly have anything to throw up? Or, what exactly happens in my stomach and lower intestines when I am sick that causes everything to be liquefied?

I spent my Tuesday morning starting around 3 am until around noon taking great care to clear the entire contents of my intestines, it was a fire sale---everything must go!

I feel much better now, although that is not exactly a great accomplishment, because I was “mostly dead” yesterday (remember The Princess Bride?). On the plus side, I only managed to eat two pieces of toast so I am pretty certain that my intestines are as clean as they have ever been—if I were to accidentally be turned inside out, it wouldn’t be all that disgusting.

The things you learn on Discovery channel

I love the Discovery channel, and I watch it wiht my sons (after they finish their homework.)

Why does a 7 year old have homework?

Anyway, apparently a good way to keep your head cool if you are stranded in the desert, is to take of an undershirt, cut it into a makeshift turban, and wrap it around your head to stay cool, you can't let your core body temp rise above 105.

If you are still hot, you can pee on the shirt, and wrap it around your head...this has the added benefit of making for a funny ice-breaking story when you finally get picked up by a trucker when you find a highway.

Trucker: "You smell like piss, boy."

Me: "yeah, I took a leak on my shirt and then wrapped my head with it."

Trekking with my sons

And we ran into one of Mr. Ford's inventions, sitting out in the woods at our family farm.

And what was really strange, cactus...in Mid-Missouri?

enough with the politics

I have to stop with the politics crap...my opinion is about as valid and informed as Lindsay Lohan's, except that I don't have the floundering C-list Hollywood credentials to fall back on.

Besides, I have begun to loathe it, and loathe the fact that some people cannot seperate me from my beliefs.

So---I will attempt to not weigh in on political crap for a while. There is too much other good stuff in life to get myself bogged down in that.

And like OSHO says, "all arguments are futile and stupid."

Brilliant.

Coming soon: the Democratic “principles” of slightly higher federal minimum wages, “immigration reform” that gives the 12 million illegals already here legal status plus a big incentive for anyone thinking of making the trip, repeal of the “Bush tax cuts,” and most likely a Nixonian “peace with honor” strategy in Iraq that means we admit that we are no longer willing to carry on the fight, (other wise known as “retreat.”)

Silver linings

Sometimes when things don't work out the way you might have hoped, it takes a little while to get your perspective...and you think, "how could so many people disagree with my obviously sensible ideas?"

But here we are, the day after the elections and the Republicans have taken a much deserved thumping.

The silver lining for me?
Republicans deserved to lose: they abandoned their principles on spending and imigration and they have failed to maintain their status as the fiscally responsible party. A loss like this gives them an opportunity to go back to their core principles.
Despite what Brian Williams and Matt Lauer told me, this election was NOT a referendum on Iraq: Lieberman ran a clean campaign not wavering in his support for our efforts in Iraq against a vehemently vocal anti-Iraq candidate in a very blue state and won as an Independent by a huge margin.
It was not a victory for the Democratic plan, domestic or foriegn: There is no plan. They recruited moderate-conservative candidates to run for seats that have been long held by Republicans. In fact, many of the Democrats that won seats would look more comfortable caucusing (sp?) with the Republicans, (Casey in PA for example, or Lieberman in CT)...and many of the Republicans that lost were RINO's (Chafee, Leach and Hostettler) that voted frequently with the Democrats.

So, chin up, better to lose some seats in a mid-term now then to have lost 2 years ago to John Kerry.

Congratulations to the Democrats

The nation has sent a clear message, and that message has something to do with lingering dissatisfaction about some things and sort of disagreement on other things and we clearly want to go in a “new direction” which will be determined and announced soon. "It’s time for a change" in Washington from corrupt, over-spending, budget-busting, stem cell researching Republicans to corrupt, over-spending, budget-busting, embryonic stem cell researching Democrats, hoo-ray!

As for Iraq, no one knows for certain, but this election was a referendum on Iraq, (that’s what Brian Williams and Matt Lauer told me at least 30 times) or maybe it was a referendum on Rumsfeld…either way we have collectively sent slightly more Democrats to Washington to represent us than Republicans so clearly America has voted to either continue doing something in Iraq, or stop doing something in Iraq, or to continue doing certain things but stop doing other things in Iraq, but definitely Rumsfeld will resign by the end of the day. It’s a mandate with a capital "M".

But he wasn't an "imminent threat"

Nothing to see here folks, move along...just some friendly folks playing with their tactical weapons capable of carrying nuclear warheads over 1200 miles.

The New York Times just released that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program after all.

The highlight:

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. . . .
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

A ringing endorsement

Despite the Democrat's consistently offering a clear cut strategy in the war on terror every chance they can, and making it clear that if/when they are elected they will more competently prosecute the war than the current administration...for some reason some terror leaders have the idea that the Democrats would withdraw from Iraq and the larger war on terror. In fact, most Americans think the same according to a recent NY Times poll.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

On their website, the Democrats said, "We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security."
"Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive – from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil – and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home," the statement continued.

But for some reason, most Americans think that if Democrats were to win in the mid-terms--America would withdraw from Iraq more quickly--as suggested by a new NY Times poll.
The survey said Americans believe the Democrats "have coalesced around a general position of finding a way to reduce or end American involvement in Iraq" but it also noted "there is substantial disagreement among Democratic Congressional leaders and candidates about exactly how to accomplish that."
"Nearly 75 percent of respondents, including 67 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats, said they expected that Americans (sic) troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under a Democratic-led Congress."

I'm not sure why they would think that: here is what soon to be house speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently: "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

I think it is clear that she means no matter how tough the fight we will continue and not withdraw.

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, told WND the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

Bush's response is not hard to understand.

"As a matter of fact, I believe the only way we cannot succeed is if we leave before the job is done," he said.
Bush said Democrats have talked a lot about different plans to deal with terrorism.
"They've come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. Sometimes they say, 'immediate redeployment.' Sometimes they say they wouldn't spend another dime on our troops. Sometimes they say the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses," he said.

an imbecile from Massachusetts

Saw this editorial cartoon and had to share it...

dog pile

In an attempt to make J-Dub's hit meter go up, I have engaged in a little over-zealous commenting on the subject of Kerry's recent gaffe at a campaign speech for some candidate in California. (Angelides)

I truly believe that Kerry has built his political career by slandering his fellow service men. James Taranto says it best in today's Best of the Web:

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'
"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.
The reason Kerry's comments have had such resonance is because many observers have long suspected that he has not abandoned, or even moderated, the antimilitary and anti-American views he espoused back in the early 1970s, when he told a Senate hearing this about his fellow veterans:
They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
And indeed, Kerry seems to stand by this outrageous slander. Yesterday he told Don Imus:
I've told the truth in the past. I've never done anything except tell the truth. And I'm not going to take anybody's comment to suggest that somehow my telling the truth was a mistake. The American people rely on the truth. And when I came back from Southeast Asia, I told the truth.
If he stands by his slanders from all those years ago, why should we believe him now when he says he was only trying to slander the president of the United States?

Anyway, if you like following trolling comments, goto J-Dub site and read through what a few people have to say....it's almost amusing.