Scott McClellan and the Book of the Century

A while ago, I wrote about an excerpt of Scott McClellan’s book (before I moved to WordPress, and somehow the move ate the quote on that post). It was clear then that McClellan was trying to manufacture some Lefty outrage to increase book sales. Why would he want to suck up to the Left? Because they buy books. If you look at the political non-fiction books released lately, all the #1s are books that appeal to the looney Left. McClellan, who’s already filed affidavits for investigation into the Plame leak, now comes out saying Bush was the one who authorized the leak. Why didn’t he testify earlier, when he wasn’t working for the White House and writing this book? If he’s so interested in doing the right thing, why not testify then?

The Washington Post confirms this with the statement McClellan’s book was first regarded as “a not-very-interesting, typical press secretary book.” After his editor says insinuates “It won’t sell unless it’s got something juicy in it”, now McClellan suddenly realizes Bush Lied.

He also criticized memoirs of other Administration “turncoats”, saying pretty much what I’m saying here:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let’s look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry’s campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. …

It’s pretty clear the motivation of McClellan’s book. The only people who could buy this garbage are Democrat propagandists and/or music professors.

Off for a while

Starting tomorrow, I’ll be away from my normal haunt for a week for a professional conference.  I’ll be back next weekend.  Have a good week, folks!

Jimmy Carter, Liability

Not a surprise Jimmy Carter was out badmouthing the US embargo of Gaza. He was out spilling the beans about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. We should all be thankful– he could have told people where they were.

So the Nobel Peace Prize now goes to people who can badmouth US Foreign Policy the best? In that case– the US State Department is a bunch of half-trained baboons, and Bush is a McChimpy Hiterperson. Down with Israel! And Up with Terrorism! Israel has 200 nukes, all located in Tel Aviv!

There, now can I have my million buck Nobel Peace Prize?

Happy Memorial Day

Memorial day is a solemn day where we remember the sacrifices of those who fought and died serving our country.

It’s due to the sacrifice of those who fought in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the battles on the Frontier, World-War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict, the Gulf War, and all other American conflicts fought in our history.

Knowing that America has had generations of brave men and women truly makes me happy.  So, happy Memorial Day.  May God Bless our brave servicemen and women!

The Fine Art of Diplomacy

With all the talk on what the US should do with Iran, we should revisit what diplomacy means.  According to online sources:

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states.

Notice the word “negotiation”.  When I hear the word “negotiation”, I typically think of haggling and attempting to get the best possible trade for your time & money.  In essence, to obtain something, you must offer something of value to the other person.  If you want what they have, then you must offer them something, an incentive, in order to acquiesce to your request.  The key is that the offer must be something of comprable value.

A lot of hay has been made recently about negotiations with Iran.  The State Department has been having parlays with Iran on the topic of nuclear disarmament.  It hasn’t been very successful, but it has shown that negotiations with Iran have clearly lacked any incentive from the US that Iran finds appealing enough to end nuclear enrichment.

Obama says he’ll talk directly to the leader of Iran.  I don’t know what this will accomplish other than put the leader of Iran on equal footing with the leader of the United States.  The Baracka-ites love that idea– making the US seem an equal to Iran.  Nobody should be better than anyone else, right?  Unfortunately it flies in the face of negotiation.  Nowhere in that arrangement is the US put in a position of power.

Bush used the power of the US to form a coalition to invade and topple Saddam.  It was a useful push for power.  Iraq could have forestalled invasion had they simply complied with UN resolutions, but they didn’t, and they got invaded.  They didn’t meet the US at the table, and the US had “invasion” as their big bargaining chip.  Iraq offered nothing of value, so the US invaded.  This negotiation tactic has to be employed with Iran as well.

Should be dangle “invasion” in front of Ahmadinejad?  No.  It’s always an option (NEVER limit your options in negotiation).  But instead of invading, why not strip Iran of its most powerful negotiating piece– oil.  Blockade Iran.  Seize any vessels carrying oil out of Iran.  Some may consider this an act of war, but it’s not an invasion, and it pushes Iran to consider ending their nuclear program.  Note that their nukes cannot be used as trade, and in producing them they’ve drawn money out of other areas of the government.  A blockade to the Iranian economy will trigger an economic crisis.

If the US uses a blockade, it will give the US one big bargaining chip– one that’s equal in size to the Iranian nuke-card.  Iran cannot survive with its primary export blocked.  They could attempt to ship it through Pakistan, but they just wouldn’t have the necessary capacity to make as much money as they do now shipping from Pakistan.  They can’t go through Iraq, and Turkey would probably side with NATO and the US.  There are no other ocean-outlets for tankers.  Iran would be stuck with a greatly diminished oil-shipping capacity.

What’s great about the blockade is that it will be a military solution without invasion.  It worked for Kennedy and Cuba, why not Iran?  Iran could strike out at US forces, but we all know how that will end for Iran, and even then, the US wouldn’t need to invade.

Of course, the UN would never agree to it.  They don’t like embargoes, much less an actual military blockade.  Besides, if the US can do this independent of the UN, it gives us that much more freedom.  If we ask beforehand, it will seem a gracious act.

As for ships carrying Iranian oil, seize them and the oil.  Send a clear message that nothing gets out of Iran.  That and Iran must consider dropping its nuke program

Speaking of Envirofasicsts

Don’t get an Xbox– it destroys the planet!  And it could kill you!

Beautiful Jupiter

More storms have appeared on Jupiter, shown beautifully by the Hubble. Here’s a pretty shot of the biggest planet in the solar system, with new storms near the Big Red Spot.

Seems these storms may be the product of planetary warming. Makes you think…

Finally, Honest Politicians!

He admits the Democrats were “lying” last election just to get elected. No, really?

And just in case you missed it, Maxine Waters, Democrat, thinks nationalizing the oil companies (like Venezuela, China and Russia) is a good idea. Click on the link below to view.

Link: sevenload.com

Sick of “Greening” and “Organic Living”

You’ve all heard it.  “I’m using compact flourescent lightbulbs because they’re better for the environment.”  Or “I’m going to use cloth diapers to avoid dumping them in landfills.”  Or “I’m not going to buy anything plastic because it doesn’t biodegrade in landfills.”  These are the statements of your “Green” friends.  We’re destroying the environment through consumption.  The same ideals are being applied to food, too, and “organic eating”.  Eat less beef beacuse cattle are bad for the environment.  Same with pigs.  (Fish will be on the way out as well because we don’t want to overfish).  Soon we’ll be encouraged to eat nothing but lentils and beets, and even those in short supply because farming is bad for the environment.

I’ve been to the store and I’ve seen “organic food”.  It’s about double the price of the “inorganic” food.  It’s supposed to be healthier for you because it doesn’t contain “chemicals”.  There’s also the breads.  100% Stone ground wheat-seed fiber pods bread that costs double what wheat bread normally costs.  The difference?  The use of enriched flour, which is cheaper to use.  Dr. Oz is on Oprah telling us that we need to eat more flaxseed oil ($15 a bottle– chump change for a heart surgeon, but for a teacher with two kids, it’s a luxury) and start eating better (many of the foods he espouses are expensive as well– again, easy for a guy who makes $400,000 as a heart surgeon).

Look, Dr. Oz knows what he’s talking about.  If you’ve got the money and you want to buy the absolute best foods for you, then by all means, clean out the shelves at Whole Foods.  In the meantime, don’t guilt the lower-middle class into buying all of this expensive organic and green crap while blowing a horn that they’re killing themselves in an over-consumptive lifestyle.

Organic foods aren’t better for you.  Hate to say it, they may be worse for you.  Beef without antibiotics are more prone to disease.  If you want to eat diseased meat, go right ahead.  As for the veggies– organic means no pesticides (which means lower crop yields due to greater loss at the hands of insects which means, you guessed it, higher prices).  Now, the FDA is fanatic about what is used to preserve food.  Do you think they’d let “harmful pesticides” get into your food?  No.  There’s enforcement in place that keeps our food supply safe.  Going without pesticides simply means you’re willing to spend more for food that doesn’t have “chemicals’ because you have an inherent distrust of the chemical industry.  Thanks, by the way.

As for Green Living, I’m more than happy to live as efficiently as possible.  Recycle rainwater for garden watering– it’s a good idea.  Compact fluorescent light bulbs are an energy saver (although they may be more damaging to the environment when they are disposed of).  Hybrid cars save gas, but they save you no money, and they contain more materials that are environmentally damaging than normal cars.  Solar energy?  great idea!  Too bad it takes 20 years to offset the cost of panel installation.  What’s worse is shows like “Wasted” that make you feel guilty for using disposable diapers and ordering a pizza.

What does all of this do?  It funnels money into the Green industry.  Who’s promoting all this stuff?  The people who are heavily invested in the Green industry.  You may feel marginally better, but just remember that we’re in a slowing economy and you’re spending twice as much on bread.  With fuel costs where they are, don’t you want to save some money?

Here’s a clue– people have been eating butter and enriched flour since the 1940s, and the country hasn’t had an epidemic of people dying in their 40’s.  The key here is exercise.  We’re becoming a sedentary society.  Turn off the tv, grab the basketball, and shoot some hoops.  Run a bit.  Swim.  Walk.  Dance.  Keep moving, and burn off all those calories you’ve been eating.  And you’ll feel much better– better than you would if you shell out $5 for organic lettuce.

Global Warming Hysteria Targets Fat People

Scientists in the UK are now saying obesity is accelerating global warming. What an impact it makes is still totally ambiguous, but if the root problem is CO2 emissions, then fat people would emit more just as it takes more energy to move them around.

It’s a no brainer, really. Sure, the obese are going to contribute more to AGW, if AGW is real. But peel away the veneer and what do you find?

Don’t forget– children are bad in the eyes of the AGW zealot. Have less kids, save the world, right? China’s got that down to a tee. Kill extra kids, less resources needed, and less emissions.

Now the fat are bad. The fat are destroying the planet. They eat more, which means they need more cows for their fast food burgers, which is more styofoam waste, which means— Gah! Hamburglars everywhere!

The key here is that the AGW zealots are using AGW to force people to change– forget about freedom, this is about saving the planet! (Of course, Global Warming has taken a hiatus, but that’s beyond the point.) Let’s make a list of what people need to do to save the world from the evils of AGW:

1. Stop driving CO2 producing vehicles. (That means almost all vehicles– cars, airplanes, trucks, trains, even that moped.)
2. Stop using coal for power. (Generates CO2) And oil or methane/ethane/propane/butane for that matter.
3. Stop consuming. The more we buy, the more we need industry, which means the more we harm the planet.
4. Stop eating meat. Meat comes from farm animals, which means that’s that many more animals stressing the biosphere and putting dangerous methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Start eating pure vegetarian diets and stop the slaughter of animals for food. (Meat is murder, and you’re murdering 6.2 billion people, you selfish bacon-loving bastard!)
5. Stop having kids. The more people there are, the more stress there is on the biosphere and the greater demand for resources, such as food and energy, two of the biggest contributors to global warming. Therefore, don’t have kids. If you do have kids, abort!
6. Stop using electricity. We can’t use fossil fuels for energy because they’re obviously bad. We can’t use hydroelectric because that requires a dam and that hurts the environment. Solar and wind are your only alternatives, and that means a ten-fold increase in electricity costs due to unreliability of the resource. Nuclear power produces really bad waste, so that can’t be an alternative.
7. Don’t use any motors, even electric ones! The more power you tap to power your motorized devices, the more CO2 has to be released. So all that Led Zepplin you’ve been listening to? Destroying the earth. Selfish 70’s dropout!
8. Stop building. Wood & stone need fuel to transport their materials. That’s a no-no! Also, cutting down old-growth forests requires fuel and it prevents those trees from reaching out and absorbing our CO2.  So, get out the yurt and live simply.

So there’s the natural progression of the AGW zealot’s argument. Become an off-the-grid vegetarian or the world is going to die. Which are you going to choose, you selfish tool? I wish I was being funny, but the environmentalists of this movement have always been after these goals, and finally they have a movement which is convincing the gullible to shed their meat-eatin’, car-drivin’, ways.