Wasting Time With Alex

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Obama proves he is a hardcore lib

I just about fell off my chair and had to stifle a laugh after reading in this article about Obama that the Senator made the following claim:

“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year. “Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal.”

Facts? PLEASE! Liberals are completely and utterly motivated by feel good emotions, and have never met a fact they would not ignore or attack the person mentioning it with accusations of homophobia, sexism, racism, or some such other term meant to silence them when it didn’t suit their socialist world views. If liberals were able to better understand the facts, they would understand the concept of consequences. Especially negative consequences which seem to always accompany any of these things liberals do based on their grasp of “facts”. Talk about being disconnected from reality. The left will love him for making this statement, but the fact is that this is an outright idiotic lie unless the only facts that count are those that help the left.

Some people get it

I guess the people that wrote this article and the lefty Canooks up in arms about, all are missing the point. Harper was right then and remains right now. Kyoto is an abysmal failure, has done nothing to curb any kind of warming, and failed to cripple the US economy and give the socialist nations that saw and continue to see their inability to compete with the US forcing them to dismantle their socialist governments now sooner than later.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a “socialist scheme” designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord.

Only big government loving socialists are unable to see that Kyoto’s sole function was to destroy the economy to the US and to usher in the age of big socialism and wealth redistribution from the rich industrialized world to the other countries. Social justice an all that other supposedly noble pap socialists are always ready to engage in with other people’s money of course. Or maybe they know exactly what they are up to, but this stuff plays well - like throwing out the bigot, homophobe, racism, and sexist cards usually do to silence debate - with the anti-America and anti-capitalist crowds. Kyoto was pap. And I am glad to see it rot. I am even more delighted to know the guy leading our neighbor up north agrees with me.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Here is why only force will stop Iran from going nuclear

Well for the skeptics that keep thinking some kind of diplomatic solution can be reached to curb the current mad Iranian leaderships mad dash to building nuclear weapons, I again present proof of why diplomacy in the end will fail. It seems that the very idiots that are shouting the loudest that diplomacy needs to be given a chance, are also the ones that will make sure it will fail miserably:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran.

Administration officials say a new American drive to reduce exports to Iran and cut off its financial transactions is intended to further isolate Iran commercially amid the first signs that global pressure has hurt Iran’s oil production and its economy. There are also reports of rising political dissent in Iran.

In December, Iran’s refusal to give up its nuclear program led the United Nations Security Council to impose economic sanctions. Iran’s rebuff is based on its contention that its nuclear program is civilian in nature, while the United States and other countries believe Iran plans to make weapons.

See why unless we can somehow on our own topple the current Iranian regime diplomacy will mean squat? The vaunted UN, the love of all these socialist European nations, has decreed sanctions are to be put on Iran, but the very idiots demanding we give diplomacy the umpteenth chance - after it has failed repeatedly and in an ugly way for the last 4 years - are not willing to do what they preach because of greed. Apparently they are all for sanctions as long as it doesn’t affect their bottom lines. This kind of moronic attitude and the ridiculous moral equivalence that permeates these people, is why diplomacy fails. I bet that a bit of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, after all Israel & the US are the ones Iran is claiming will be first in their gun sights, plays a role. Like the Chinese, I bet these Europeans are gambling that when Iran goes nuclear they will have plenty of warnings as it will be either Israel or a US city, or maybe some place in Iraq that will go up in smoke. The US is likely to reply with brutal force, and they again lose nothing while gaining. The loss of Israel and/or damage to the US seem to have become bonuses to people that think that the US and Israel are bigger threats to world security than say a nuclear armed Iran, North Korea, Putin’s ambitions to reconstitute the USSR, or the communist regime that still runs China and has real dreams of empire. Thanks for the war you are guaranteeing comes our way Euros.

Monday, January 29, 2007

More proof of why the left can not be trusted to protect us

It seems that another egghead, a history professor at John Hopkins University none the less, thinks that in the grand scheme of things 9-11 was an overreaction;

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

This idiot’s argument is that until America loses a few million citizens and is under constant attack, like the USSR in WWII (I hazard a guess that this guy doesn’t feel the tens of millions Stalin tortured and killed independent of WWII in the name of communism was also not a big deal), we should not consider this a real war. Yeah, this is the same old tired argument from the left that wants us to treat terrorism as a crime and to react after the fact because until millions have died and people die constantly from acts of terrorism it isn’t worthy of being considered as a war.

If this guy isn’t providing us all with the argument why people that think like him, and they are primarily on the left, can not be trusted with power I do not know what will. Can you imagine being one of these 3000 people or a relative of these 3000 people that this professor writes off because it isn’t a number in the millions? Remember we are not talking about an acceptable risk like the number of casualties from flying or driving here, but people killed by evil men because they believe that they are at war with us. I guess we should wait until Iran has and uses nukes on us, not just a single detonation either but a string of nukes, to take it seriously and fight them like we are at war. Of course I bet this prof thinks healtcare is a calamity and that we do need a war there. Frightening is an understatement. But they want power..

Some Muslims get it and do care..

There has been a lot of noise from the traditional Islamic organizations that are quick to condemn anyone showing the evils of radical Islamism, but frightinly obvious never able to condemn the evil these radicals commit and the beliefs they hold, and the show 24 which depicted a radical Muslim group detonating a suitcase nuke in a suburb of LA, is the latest cause to give them grief. But there are some Muslims that get it. Wish there were more people like this. It would really convince me that they stood a chance against the radicals and their cause to plunge us all into a global religious war.

Is this why Iran wants to launch satellites?

I read the story about Iran’s attempts to convert some of its long range missiles to launch satellites into orbit with some trepidation and a feeling that there was likely a lot more to this story than what was being reported, and I finally found out why. A vehicle that can be used to insert satellites into orbit can also be used to fire FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) into orbit. Iran is basically taking a page out of the nuclear playbook of the USSR and looking to create the capability to use the EMP (electromagnetic pulse) created by a nuclear detonation to cripple the target’s integrated circuit based technology. Such a device would destroy all non-shielded IC components - basically every appliance ranging from cell phones to cars & airplanes - and have devastating consequences. Again, remember that these capabilities are being pursued by a bunch of lunatics that feel it is their purpose in life to start Armageddon…

AP reports.. maybe

I always find it hilarious to see the contradiction in the way organizations like the AP report news from Iraq. When it is something that hurts our cause and makes the US look bad, there is never any doubt or language to leave the reader with the impression that there might be more to the story than what they claim. But as soon as they can not spin the story negatively, it is full of language to make it looked like we are dealing with tall claims and likely unconfirmed reporting of inconsequential antics. Case in point any story where the good guys kill the bad guys. Based on the AP’s record, there will likely be a follow up story claiming that the people killed where all innocent civilians. That’s the beauty of being a terrorist that is fighting troops that have the news media of their own country working against them. You can not only score on the battlefield, but also in the propaganda that passes for news coverage after it the fact. Why no mention that this was directly tied to the troops surge the left is actively undermining (non binding idiot resolution anyone?) and at a time where Iran is looking to increase its influence in the conflict? Iraq=quagmire is all that counts. America must lose so Bush gets it. The consequences be damned. What’s next? Hillary demanding that Bush fix Iraq so the next president doesn’t have to explain to the American people how they will deal with the critical issues of terrorism, Iranian nuclear and political ambitions - including their fascination with end-of-times nuclear scenarios where the Jewish state of Israel disappears under a nuclear mushroom of their making – in the region, and nuclear arms race by Iran’s neighbors that worry about what a nuclear armed Iran will mean to them if they do not have nukes top counter Iranian ambitions that is sure to follow from Iran’s antics. Oh wait. Hillary already told Bush that he better pull us out of Iraq – way to cover for your previous approval of the Iraqi war Senator! – and not leave it for the next president (meaning her) to clean up. Hill-areous.

UPDATE: If you really want a feel for what is going on in Iraq without the doom & gloom from the anti-American media which has as its primary focus the task of convincing people that this war is lost - even if this is an outright lie - so we actually do lose it, check out Strategy Page’s coverage. It is outstanding. Especially the section on the top 10 myths from the anti-war lefties that have taken traction with people that have no clue about what is really going on but have a vested interest in seeing American troops in Iraq fail.

Maybe this is why he can not run for president again

I guess John Kerry is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Al Gore, whom also lost to George W. Bush in another election where the left will not admit defeat but claims it had a victory stolen (elections are always stolen when the left loses it seems) from it, and demonizing his country. If Bush is such an evil idiot, what does it say of every democrat that lost to him? What does it say about the biggest propaganda machine that could not defeat him despite having a virtual stranglehold on most news agencies? Yeah, I know. Insane people are not able to add 2 and 2 and realize that they in the process of demonizing their opposition make themselves look even more stupid and worthless.

Healthcare

Friday, January 26, 2007

Pruden on BDS infected left..

This article by Wesley Pruden goes right to the heart of what I have for a long time believed is the problem with the left: they have lost all ability to think rationally because their entire essence and reason for being is based on hatred of George W. Bush, and a need to destroy him and anything related to him. Their hatred and irrationality is so far gone that they in the process of pursuing their goal remain oblivious to the consequences of their actions. Scorched earth for scorched earth’s sake doesn’t make for anything but trouble.

Destroying a president is not much of a strategy to win a war, but it’s all the Democrats have. The churls of the left don’t seem to care whether their country wins the war, the important thing is to “keep hate alive.” If hate worked in ‘06, maybe it will work again in ‘08, when the stakes will be considerably higher.

Sometimes it’s not only hate, but a bit of schadenfreude, too, taking pleasure in the woes of the enemy. “Partisan pleasure in George Bush’s pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss,” observes Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal. “The Democrats have run against something called ‘Bush’ for so long this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq’s troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.”

So engrossed are these loser with sticking it to GWB, that they do not realize they will pay for the consequences of their success. Tragedy is an understatement. I remember often being angered by Clinton’s shenanigans, ineffectiveness, and the fact that the left made excuses for him, but I do not ever recall going so crazy that I rooted for & acted in a way that would make something bad that would definitely impact me happen, just to see Clinton “get it” like the libs today are doing. Can anyone believe that people with this level of insanity are able to think rationally about anything? What about making decisions and running a country? I for one do not.

Better late than never..

It looks like the WH has finally wised up and has authorized our troops to kill Iranian operatives in Iraq. Personally I think this is still too little, but it is a good first step. Until Iran starts directly losing assets in this proxy war of theirs against us in Iraq, we will not make a dent in their efforts. We might soon have to do much more than that if this turns out to be true. And coming from the vaunted UN, I can not see how the radical BDS infected loons will dismiss it. Unless of course they now claim the UN works for “Bush-Hitler” (BDS infected lib lingo warning) and is advancing his war for oil, an idiotic course of thinking I do not put past the America hating lunatics on the left. We might not want this confrontation, but the crazy bastards running the show in Iran, certainly do. Of course America will be blamed by the crazies when that happens.

Universal Healthcare redux

The socialists dominating government in “The People’s Republic of Connecticut” are again agitating for Universal Healthcare and have a new plan that will cost $450 million the first year - nobody has a clue what it will cost after that but I am guessing it will double if not triple - and blow the state constitutionally mandated spending cap big-time to cover about 40% of the uninsured, mostly people that do not want to pay for healthcare since they can get it for free already anyway. I expect these shysters to simply break the law by ignoring the cap or moving it outside of the purveyance that subjects it to the spending cap anyway because they want to give themselves the power that comes with a beholden population that depends on them for everything.

Anyone here ever been part of an HMO - a Health Maintenance Organization, and the creation of another brilliant socialist: Ted Kennedy - and suffered through the mandates & restrictions? I have. It was horrible. The HMO decided who I could see and when, what procedures I could get, when I could get them, and if I could get them at all. Doctors made decisions based not on what was best for me, but what was the most cost efficient to the HMO parent company so they could get bonuses. The system basically was rigged against the patient, even though we paid for it. And Universal healthcare will not be free. We will all pay for it. What you get from an HMO is the best case scenario if government ever instituted Universal Healthcare. You heard that right. I said best case. It would likely get much worse as they were forced to limit what care is available and the wait for that care, to bring down the massive costs associated with such a system. And forget freedoms to choose things. Of course liberals are only concerned with keeping government free of conservatives and conservative principles, not really any rights. Government would again dictate what you can or can not do period. But idiot socialists, as is always the case, care more about what feels good than facts, costs, and consequences. That is why they keep fighting for it, despite the obvious shortcomings of Universal Healthcare and the disaster it will bring to Healthcare for all Americans.

Krauthammer on energy

Charles Krauthammer again nails it square on the head in this awesome analysis of what the bid todo about Ethanol is really about. A well educated man he seem to have the same reaction/opinion I had when I saw Bush waste time discussing this during the SOTU address.

Is there anything more depressing than yet another promise of energy independence in yet another State of the Union address? By my count, 24 of the 34 State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973 have proposed solutions to our energy problem. The result? In 1973 we imported 34.8 percent of our oil. Today we import 60.3 percent.

And what does this president propose? Another great technological fix. For Jimmy Carter, it was the magic of synfuels. For George Bush, it’s the wonders of ethanol. Our fuel will grow on trees. Well, stalks, with even fancier higher-tech variants to come from cellulose and other (literal) rubbish.

It is very American to believe that chemists are going to discover the cure for geopolitical weakness. It is even more American to imagine that it can be done painlessly. Ethanol for everyone. Farmers get a huge cash crop. Consumers get more supply. And the country ends up more secure.

This is nonsense. As my colleague Robert Samuelson demonstrates, biofuels will barely keep up with the increase in gasoline demand over time. They are a huge government bet with goals and mandates and subsidies that will not cure our oil dependence or even make a significant dent in it.

Even worse, the happy talk displaces any discussion about here-and-now measures that would have a rapid and revolutionary effect on oil consumption and dependence. No one talks about them because they have unhidden costs. Politicians hate unhidden costs.

There are three serious things we can do now: Tax gas. Drill in the Arctic. Go nuclear.

Dead on. Ethanol is a waste of time. It costs too much to make, has about 75% of the energy output of gasoline, would require massive amounts of corn - to the point it would leave nothing for us to export to nations that depend on our corn to feed their people - and only serve to drive up costs of everything that contains corn products up. It will not help ease gas consumption or affect the environment in the least. In fact it is a ridiculous boondoggle. Probably just there to appease hard core environutjob leftist anti-American people. Frankly I only believe that Drilling for our own oil AND building lots of nuclear power plants will solve our oil issue, but neither are very popular with the socialists.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, I meant to commetn on the following section:

What about nuclear waste? Well, coal produces toxic pollutants, as does oil. Both produce carbon dioxide that we are told is going to end civilization as we know it. These wastes are widely dispersed and almost impossible to recover once they get thrown into the atmosphere. Nukes produce waste as well, but it comes out concentrated — very toxic and lasting nearly forever, but because it is packed into a small manageable volume, it is more controllable. And it doesn’t pollute the atmosphere. At all.

Modern nuclear technology based on Carbon encased Uranium pellets as fuel will allow these pellets to burn until all the fuel is exhausted - unlike nuclear fuel rods which can only do so for 15% and then remain as radioactive waste with lifetimes in the thousands of years - leaving minimal if any kind of radioactive waste. And even more important, this new technology makes for the safest possible reactors as Carbon with a melting point of 10,000 degrees would prevent a Uranium, with 5K degree melting point, meltdown which so frighten the anti-nuclear energy crowd. So the concerns and problems with waste disposal & safety as a reasons not to use nuclear energy, are all bogus. And yet here we are talking about idiotic Ethanol.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

And the beat goes on..

It seems that the UN, that august body of shysters, crooks, and thieves that seems to think every mission they send their people on is a chance for them to abuse the local children sexually, while doing absolutely nothing to protect the people they have been charged to protect, while both decrying the evils of capitalist America and trying to convince us all they should be made the ultimate authority and government, is again prepared to decry the evils of man made global warming. Of course the UN only believes man made global warming exists because they then conclude that the only way to solve it is to allow them to form a one-world socialist government that will redistribute the wealth, in the name of “social justice” of course, and suddenly end this global warming thing cold. Funny that such a huge problem doesn’t have an engineering/technical solution but a social one, and one that greatly favors the UN’s move to grab control of the world, and especially America’s, purse strings.

Anyway, we keep hearing how warm this winter has been the warmest ever. And while this has been the case in some places - and that is all the crowd of global warming religious fanatics need to prove their belief is right - but it is seldomly mentioned that other places have seen a brutal winter, just like the poor people of Anchorage, Alaska - which have been spared the cold & snow, it now looks that it is everywhere. Even the North East, where winter has been mild and life was nice, is in line for some brutal weather. And there is a lot of talk that winter will be around long past the usual spring thaw dates the way things are going.

One thing is certain: the socialist agent provocateurs will ignore the fact they have no clue what they are talking about and continue to agitate for us to turn over the world’s purse strings to them in order to stop a potential problem that if it exists will never go away based on their socialist solution for sure. Take global warming seriously when they come up with real engineering/technical solutions - like switching to nuclear or geothermal power to generate electricity, rectifying building codes to address realistic possible rises in water levels, and improving power generation & distribution to avoid waste, especially in the growing third world economies - instead of the usual crap about kneecapping the successful capitalist economies of the world and handing their purse strings to a global socialist government. Until then, it is all about using panic to grab power and ram socialism down our collective (pun intended) throats.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Axis of evil on the march

There was a reason we lumped North Korea and Iran into the axis-of-evil: North Korea is helping Iran prepare to test its nukes:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year. Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran’s nuclear scientists.

For those that still see no problem with Iran going nuclear considering some others also have, I would like to point out that not even the USSR ever resorted to calling for the extermination of another nation, but Iran’s mad hatter seems hell bent on telling everyone (even if most of them refuse to listen and accept the danger) that he wants a nuclear holocaust.

We seem to be trying to show Iran we will not tolerate this behavior by increasing our capability to strike at them, but I highly doubt this will mean anything with the Iranians already well aware that the defeatist democrats in this country have made it nigh impossible for the president to act with force. Bush tried last night to convince poll driven elected officials to stop running away from the very problem their negativity and undermining created, and to support the critical war in Iraq, but I have a feeling this is too little too late (frankly I was a lot more pissed at all the socialism and bull about global warming in that speech). Look at how the people that have gone out of their way to aid & abet the enemy reacted to the request for support! Consequently Iran now, correctly in my opinion, assumes there will likely be no hostile action against it and it will eventually get and likely use that bomb.