WARREN BUFFETT IS QUALIFIED TO BE A HYPOCRITE

Warren Buffett, hypocrite is the title of an article in the NEW YORK POST. A hypocrite because he said recently that people like him should pay more taxes, yet his company admits, according to the Post article that it owes back taxes.

As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company [Berkshire Hathaway] openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

Mr. Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway apparently still has unresolved tax issues for tax years 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

By the way, there is no law that prevents someone from writing a check to the IRS. In fact the law specifically provides for that kind of payment. Therefore if anyone feels they underpay their taxes, the remedy is simple send a check!

When someone like Warren Buffett makes the claim, that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than many of his employees do, he is being a little disingenuous.

...he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Disingenuous because he makes most of his money in the form of qualified dividends. Dividends which are taxed when he receives them at a rate of 15%. (All citizens pay from 0% to a maximum of 15% on qualified dividends.) But the actual rate on those dividends for Mr. Buffett is closer to 40% or more, because they are also subject to taxation when Berkshire Hathaway files their corporation return.

Raise the top tax rate on them by 13 percent, as Obama wants (from 35 percent to 39.6 percent) and you bring in only another $26 billion, tops -- and that’s if your tax hike doesn’t stifle the economy and kill jobs (which it surely would). Yet what’s $26 billion in a world of $4 trillion federal budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits?

The $26 Billion is not enough to pay our $4 Trillion debt, so when Obama and friends say millionaires and billionaires, they also must tax those who make as little as $200 thousand. $200,000 is quite a lot, but it takes five of those taxpayers to get to $1,000,000.

What about the 51% of taxpayers who pay nothing, nada, zip? Shouldn't they pay something? Not only do the top half pay all the income taxes, many in the other half get back all they paid plus some of what the top half payed.

BIBLICAL SUBMISSION IS...

Kirsten Powers has it right as she explaines Biblical Submission in Stop Attacking Evangelicals!

Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked in a debate whether she would be submissive to her husband as president, the punditry has morphed into a morass of armchair theologians pushing flawed interpretations of what submission means in a biblical context.

To the vast majority of Bible reading Christians, the word submission is interpreted to mean respect and love for one another. It applies to more than just Husband and Wife. The original language of this part of the New Testament Bible was translated from the Greek. In this context Submission does not mean to obey. Further the word submission is applied to all Christians in their relationships with each other and the world in general. The meaning is clear to anyone who will take the time to do a little thinking.

It’s also not what any evangelical I’ve spoken to believes is even implied in the doctrine of submission. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who as an ordained Southern Baptist minister knows a few things about the Bible, explained it to me this way: “This is not about a woman being a doormat. It’s about mutual, reciprocal, selfless, sacrificial love.”

Notice the words "mutual, reciprocal, selfless and sacrificial in the last sentence of Mike Huckabee's quote! It does not apply to just wives, as Michele Bachman clearly explained. It is a respect for each other as partners in a marrage.

Kathy Keller, the wife of pastor Tim Keller of the evangelical Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, speaks regularly on the Bible and gender issues. A graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, she knows of what she speaks. She told me: “Women and men who understand the Bible’s actual teaching on headship and submission will see instantly that this issue is being defined by those on the extreme left and the extreme right, who both caricature what the Bible teaches.”

As Kristin correctly points out it is the fringe Left and Right who have perverted the true meaning understood by the vast majority of Christianity.

She [Kathy Keller] said: “A man’s headship in a marriage consists of imitating the way Jesus has died for … the church. In no Christian marriages that I know of does a husband presume to tell his wife how to do her job, whether that is homemaking or heart surgeon or commander in chief. For a woman, being submissive in your marriage means bringing all your giftedness into the marriage in support of both your husband and your marriage. If this isn’t an issue for married men, who if they are professing Christians should be willing to die for their wives, then it shouldn’t be made into an issue for a woman.”

Kristin ends her article with this paragraph.

Furthermore, look at the two highest-profile evangelical women in American politics—Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—and tell me with a straight face that they aren’t treated with respect by their husbands. If you doubt that, I can assure you that five minutes with either lady will set you straight.

PRESIDENT OBAMA BY THE LETTERS

The Obama Downgrade, Alphabetically is the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal. The author is BRET STEPHENS. Bret goes through every letter of the alphabet to make the point that, as he points out when he gets to letter "L":

L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter.

It is an interesting way to show the failures of President Obama. Bret has to admit that:

H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.

The Letter "D"

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

The Letter "E":

E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year

and the Letter "F":

F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.

One of my personal favorited is the Letter "S":

S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.

However the Letter "W" ranks as my number 1:

W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

I strongly suggest you read Mr Stephens article. Let me know what your favorite is when you finish the article.

WE ARE GROWING

The Census Bureau has released population figures for the country as of July, 2008. Only two states (Louisiana and North Dakota) decreased during the period. Louisiana does not surprise me but North Dakota did. The fastest growing state on a percentage basis is Nevada.

The fastest growing Region is the West, followed by the South. Overall the US population has risen 8% since 2000.

Price of Tradition Rising

Every year (for the last 24) the cost of one of the more popular Christmas Songs has been calculated. And the Cost of "The Twelve Days of Christmas" has risen faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). TRUE LOVES TO FACE MOST EXPENSIVE CHRISTMAS EVER AS PNC CHRISTMAS PRICE INDEX JUMPS 8.1 PERCENT IN 2008

PITTSBURGH, Dec. 1, 2008 – The PNC Christmas Price Index increased by a lavish 8.1 percent over last year, the second biggest leap in the history of the whimsical economic analysis by PNC Wealth Management based on the cost of gifts in the holiday classic, “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”

According to the 24th annual survey, the cost of the PNC CPI is $21,080 in 2008, $1,573 more than last year. The PNC CPI exceeds the U.S. government’s Consumer Price Index – the widely used measure of inflation calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Consumer Price Index is up 3.7 percent this year. The core CPI has increased 2.2 percent since Oct. of 2007.

Apparently the Swans are to blame for the biggest price increase; or at least the cost of them is.

The seven swans a-swimming proved to be a driver of this year’s index, carrying the greatest weight with a whopping 33.3 percent increase due to their scarcity. True Loves will spend $5,600 this year for Swans compared with $4,200 in 2007, accounting for $1,400 of the $1,573 increase. The swans typically have the largest swings in price in the PNC CPI.

Much like the government’s CPI, the PNC CPI also measures a "Core Index"—up just 1.1 percent this year - that excludes the swans. The core Consumer Price Index excludes volatile energy and food costs and is generally lower than the headline figure.

Those wishing to tighten the "Economic Belt", so to speak, might be tempted to substitute some other gift for the Swans. But the article adds a caution for those considering such a move. Remember it's not the cost, but rather the thought which counts.

“Omitting the seven swans a-swimming may be a tempting way for a True Love to hold the line on costs, but one would be advised to proceed with caution," warned James Dunigan, managing executive of investments for PNC Wealth Management.

“Because our analysts can only measure the actual cost of this seasonal treasure, not its sentimental value, True Loves may want to budget a little more carefully this year in order to purchase all the items in the song,” Dunigan said.

It appears that the cost of Birds includes the "Turtle Doves" too.

Large percentage increases were also seen in turtle doves (37.5 percent, to $56 from $40); partridges (33.3 percent, to $20.00 from $15.00) and pear trees (33.3 percent, to $199.99 from $149.99), according to PNC.

But there is some good news. The Cost of Some items fell this year.

True Loves will pay less for the five gold rings this year. Retail prices dropped by 11.4 percent (to $349.95 from $395) as retailers are trying to move luxury merchandise in light of concerns with the slowing economy, PNC found.

Two other costs in the CPI dropped this year: three French hens and Six geese-a-laying. This year the hens cost $30, a drop of 33.3 percent over last year, and the geese cost $240, falling one-third. Four calling birds remained steady, costing $599.96, the same as a year ago.

But the minimum wage is another cause for the increase.

As the only unskilled laborers in the Christmas Price Index, the eight maids a-milking received a raise for the second straight year, due to another increase in the federal minimum wage. Before 2007, they had not received a raise since 1997.

The federal minimum wage increased this year to $6.55 per hour, following last year’s $5.85. In the last two years, the maids a-milking have seen their wages rise by $1.40 per hour, an increase of 27 percent. Still, the maids will cost the True Love $52.40 this year, only $5.60 more than a year ago, a relative bargain in the PNC CPI.

The cost of most performers in the index—the drummers drumming, pipers piping and Llrds-a-leaping—jumped a modest 3 percent, essentially a cost-of-living increase, reflecting the current labor market in which the unemployment rate rose to 6.5 percent after sitting below 5 percent for much of the decade. Only the price for the Ladies Dancing was unchanged this year.

If you look for bargins by doing your shopping on-line, the figures are not good.

For those True Loves who prefer the convenience of shopping online, PNC Wealth Management calculates the cost of “The Twelve Days of Christmas” gifts purchased on the Web.

This year, the trends identified in the traditional index are repeated in the Internet version, with an overall price growth of 2.8 percent, significantly less than the traditional PNC CPI increase of 8.1 percent.

True Loves will pay a grand total of $31,957 to buy the items online, almost $11,000 more than in the traditional index.

The Bottom Line is ...

As part of its annual tradition, PNC Wealth Management also tabulates the “True Cost of Christmas,” which is the total cost of items gifted by a True Love who repeats all of the song’s verses. This holiday season, very generous True Loves will pay more than ever before—$86,609—for all 364 items, up from $78,100 in 2007, a staggering 10.9 percent increase.

PNC also provides a link for a Historical look at the cost of "The Twelve Days of Christmas".(www.pncchristmaspriceindex.com)

Give Thanks

Today is Thanksgiving, and for me there are several things to be thankful for.

I am thankful for the military and the "Commander In Chief", George Bush for taking the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am thankful for the International, National and Local Police and security personal who, because President George Bush emphasized the Terror Threats, have kept the US from enduring another Terror Attack on American Soil.

I am thankful for my wonderful Wife, three grown daughters and one grand-daughter who for the most part bring joy into my daily life.

I am thankful that I live in a country as Great as the USA.

I am thankful for the right to worship my God.

I am thankful for many other things, but the above represents the short list.

Finally, I am thankful for the opportunity to say Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.

Sincerely,
Murky Research

A Time for Thanksgiving
Obama's debt of gratitude to George W. Bush.
by Jules Crittenden
12/01/2008, Volume 014, Issue 11



As the transition progresses and Barack Obama's inauguration draws closer, it's a good moment to mull the gifts George W. Bush has left for the incoming president. Bush has made the world a better place, and if Obama wants to do the same, he will take the good things Bush has done and move forward with them.

Early indicators are in fact positive. In foreign policy, possibly embarrassed by the eagerness with which the world's most vile regimes have welcomed his election, Obama is backing off his many promises to sit down with dictators. His antiwar base is already outraged that he may not make closing the hated "Crusader gulag" at Guantánamo Bay his first act of national liberation from the Bush era. He is even reportedly considering allowing the CIA some leeway in interrogation techniques.

In the critical field of war and foreign policy, there are quite a few things for which President-elect Obama can thank George Bush.

First and foremost, Saddam Hussein-a state sponsor of terrorism, a producer of weapons of mass destruction, a warmonger, and a genocidal maniac-is gone. The threat he posed was a nagging concern to Bill Clinton, but Clinton, lacking the political will or perhaps a good excuse, was content to consider Saddam trapped in a box. George W. Bush didn't have that luxury. After the September 11 attacks the stakes were raised and Bush understood the world could not tolerate the presence of someone like Saddam, who defied all international challenges and was actively subverting the restraints upon him.

For the last five years, Saddam has been viewed, in retrospect, as having been harmless, but that is only because he was deposed and captured by forces acting on George Bush's orders, then tried and hanged by the Iraqi people. The Baathist regime is no more.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

That difficult task, which required the terrible resolve to send men to their deaths and also required several painful readjustments of strategy and tactics, was done in time so that Obama should be able to fulfill his campaign promise of getting out of Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan.

It will be possible for Obama to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq without a precipitous, premature withdrawal that could plunge the region into genocidal chaos and leave Iran the de facto regional power. Iraq is peaceful enough now that a policy fudge by Obama there-unlike on the Guantánamo issue-is something his liberal backers are unlikely to hold against him.

With minor policy adjustments that no one will notice, much less begrudge, he can stay past his 16-month deadline and continue to build Iraq as a beacon of democracy and a U.S. ally in the Middle East. Iraq's cabinet has approved a deal asking U.S. forces to stay until 2012, and Iraq's free parliament has been debating the matter in a highly spirited fashion-including fisticuffs-not unlike the early congressional proceedings of another nascent democracy.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

In the 1990s, anyone who told you Iraq would be a functioning, U.S.-allied democracy within a few short years would have been laughed out of the room. It has come at tremendous cost in both American and Iraqi lives. It is reasonable to assume, however, given the massive ethnic blood toll Saddam inflicted to maintain his regime, that establishing a Western-leaning Iraqi democracy has been accomplished with only a fraction of the violence that would have taken place absent U.S. intervention. Iran, while it meddles and wields deadly influence, has been kept at arm's length in the process, when Iran and Syria might both have been expected to descend on a post-Saddam Iraq. This highly dangerous region is stable-and has hope of remaining so.

The very concept of democracy in the region received a major boost when Arabs saw millions of Iraqis voting while under threat of death. This evolution is playing out in fits and starts in Lebanon and even the Palestinian territories, where voters have learned that the democratic process only begins with a vote. When Hamas chose to reward its backers with a bloodbath and international isolation, George Bush used that opportunity to draw an unprecedented gathering for former adversaries together to talk peace. Meanwhile, the very delicate Pakistan has advanced, with U.S. support, from military rule to elected civilian rule and remains an ally, if a problematic one, in America's war on Islamic extremism.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

George Bush has put a bow on his gift. The U.S. military's leading counterinsurgency warrior-philosopher, General David Petraeus, who resolved the initial mistakes of the Iraq occupation, now commands U.S. forces in the entire region, including Afghanistan. As some of the same voices that despaired in Iraq, declaring quagmires and demanding precipitous withdrawal, turn their despair to Afghanistan, Obama goes into battle without having to search for his Grant. He's already been found.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

The nuclear arms race in the Middle East was checked after 2003 when Iraq was cut out of it, Libya surrendered, and Iran momentarily halted its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is back in the game, and apparently Syria as well, but Europe and the U.N. have come into line with George Bush on Iran, recognizing that ultimately someone must be willing to use force when all else fails. Bush has demonstrated to Obama that it is possible to negotiate from a position of strength with the international blessing that Obama craves.

Iran is perhaps the greatest challenge Obama will face. It requires him to be willing to take action on his own and not simply manage what was initiated by Bush. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran is one that threatens to upset the pro-democracy, pro-American balance of power Bush has painstakingly created.

There is one thing Bush did not do for Obama, a key bit of unfinished business in a midwar transition. Bush failed to increase the number of U.S. ground forces in the immediate post-9/11 period when Congress would have signed a blank check. As a result, Obama will become commander in chief of an overstressed military at a time when there is still more fighting to be done. To establish himself as a wartime president and show that he is serious about America's obligations and vital interests in the world, Obama, among his first acts as president, must make an effort to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.

George W. Bush did not solve all the problems of the world's most troubled and dangerous region. But, for all his shortcomings, he has moved them forward and established the United States as the dominant agent for change in the Middle East. Consider the mess Obama would be inheriting in the region if the Bush administration had just sat on its thumbs-Ahmadinejad's Iran with an even further advanced nuclear arms program, an aging Saddam installing one of his psychopathic sons in power or Iraq being torn apart in a genocidal nightmare. Imagine all the regimes of the region, unchastened and unimpressed by the U.S. exercise of power, looking for any weakness or advantage to exploit and quite possibly finding it in al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Bush has set conditions that could allow Obama, if he abandons the desire to be liked as the underlying principle of his foreign policy and sticks to the path the Bush administration has laid out, to preside over the greatest blossoming of liberal democracy and stability the Middle East has ever seen, and in all likelihood, to get the credit for it.

For all of this, Barack Obama owes George W. Bush a tremendous debt of gratitude.


Jules Crittenden is an editor at the Boston Herald and blogs at JulesCrittenden.com.

MEMORIAL DAY 2008

Thank You to all our Service Men/Women, past and present and especially to their Families.

Thoughts about Oil Company Profits

The five largest Oil companies showed an increase in profits from the 1st quarter last year. Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC earned $36.9 billion in the first quarter. This represents a 25% increase in profits from last year. The figure $36.9 BILLION sounds like a lot of money. It is! And it represents a profit margin of about 9%.

So does $410,000,000,000.00 ($410 BILLION), but that's what it takes in Gross Sales for the Big Oil Companies to show a profit of $36.9 BILLION. The Big Oil Companies are called Big Oil because, well because they ARE BIG.

But wait a minute. Let's put this into perspective. If the Oil Companies were not so big, would we be as outraged by the BILLIONS of Dollars of profit? I think not. For example if you or I owned a company which had gross sales of $100,000.00, the same profit margin would mean we would take home only $9,000.00. Nine Thousand dollars on sales of One Hundred Thousand Dollars.

That represents the same profit margin, but it doesn't bother us as much does it? Why? Because we have a somewhat different perspective, when the numbers are smaller. There is a saying which all of us should remember. Figures don't Lie, but Liers do figure.

The moral of this story is - don't just look at the bottom line. Dig a little deeper, And Don't let the Politicians who use emotion instead of logic to fix a problem. The fix is not to tax the Big Oil Companies more. The fix is to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge and the Gulf of Mexico. The fix is to increase the capacity by expanding the oil refineries. The fix it to use Nuclear Power, Wind Power and Solar Power. The fix is to find a way to use something other than corn and other food crops for ethanol production.

Sky Really Falling

It would appear from this article (AF General: Spy Satellite Could Hit US) than the Sky may really fall. Well actually pieces of a large US satellite may fall on parts of the US.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, who heads of U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the size of the satellite suggests that some number of pieces will not burn up as the orbiting vehicle re-enters the Earth's atmosphere and will hit the ground.

This event wil be monotered, but does not appear to be of great concern at the moment.

Tax Season

Tax Season is here which means posting will be light.

Charlie Wilson's RONALD REAGAN'S WAR

According to Hollywood, as presented in "Charlie Wilson's War", opening this Friday, conveniently forgets History. The Investors Business Daily (IBD) has published Reagan's War, Not Charlie Wilson's as an attempt to counter Media Bias.

Hollywood would have us believe that Democrats defeated the evil empire in Afghanistan, and that President Reagan played only a minor role and even helped pave the way to 9/11.

Of course Hollywood has a long history of rewriting History. In "Charlie's War", President Reagan is a bit player. In reality it is Charlie Wilson who should be the footnote.

Charlie Wilson was a pro-abortion, Equal Rights Amendment-supporting congressman widely known as "the liberal from Lufkin." To his credit, he did play a role in facilitating support to the Afghan mujahadeen. But it is he who should be the historical footnote.

Of the 5 main characters involved in the actual events in Afghanistan, (Charlie being one), 4 were Republican Conservatives.

The movie is based on the book by former "60 Minutes" staffer George Crile. Crile's credits include the infamous 1982 CBS documentary alleging that Gen. William Westmoreland led a conspiracy to mislead America about the Vietnam War. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin of "West Wing" fame.

Considering the writing history of the authors of the Book and the Screenplay, helps to explain the possible bias presented in the film.

Actually another Left-Wing conspiracy theory is also featured in "Charlie Wilson's War".

The movie also perpetuates the left-wing myth that the covert operation funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and ultimately led to the 9/11 attacks. Reagan-era officials such as Ikle say Osama never got funding or weapons from the U.S. and that he didn't launch his terror war until after U.S. involvement and the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Alas Jimmie Carter is also not featured prominently in this movie.

It was his naivete about Communist expansion that led the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Had Reagan not beaten Carter in 1980 there would have been no Stingers and no victory in the Cold War.

Food for thought.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all, but especially to our men and women, and the families of our Military, (past and present) I also say Thank You and God Bless.

Murky Research

Rathergate - Dan's Waterloo

Byron York writes about the surprise move on Dan Rather's part to sue CBS News. Return to Rathergate exposes several interesting claims by Dan.

First, he claims that, after the report stirred controversy, top CBS management conducted a sham investigation of the story for the purpose of making sure that damaging information about George W. Bush be kept secret.

“CBS announced that it was conducting a thorough independent investigation into the underlying story of the broadcast and its production,” the lawsuit says, “when in fact its intention was to conduct a biased investigation with controlled timing and predetermined conclusions in order to prevent further information concerning Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service from being uncovered.”

This fake investigation, Rather charges, was done so that CBS could “pacify the White House” by making Rather the “scapegoat” of what would become known as Rathergate.

Mr. York is as surprised as I was to learn that CBS was interested in pacifying the Bush White House. It will certainly be entertaining to see Dan Accuse CBS of being a friend of George Bush, while CBS makes the case for being non-biased.

---

Meanwhile at the Huffington Post, Mary Mapes Congratulates Dan because Rather still has more reportorial testosterone than the entire employee roster at FOX News in her post Courage for Dan Rather

Mary was Dan's associate who, as I recall, obtained the documents for the Story. She makes a big deal about the Right Wing Bloggers who attacked the authenticity of the documents concerning George Bush's National Guard Service.

Whether President Bush was ducking Vietnam Service or not was not any more of a story than President Clinton's Draft Dodging. Unlike John Kerry, George Bush did not try to use his Military Service as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Actually Senator Kerry's Senate Testimony which criminalized the US Military was his downfall.

But Mary's most revealing statement is this paragraph.

We reported that since these documents were copies, not originals, they could not be fully authenticated, at least not in the legal sense. They could not be subjected to tests to determine the age of the paper or the ink. We did get corroboration on the content and support from a couple of longtime document analysts saying they saw nothing indicating that the memos were not real.

On the one hand she says the originals could not be produced, therefore, they could not be authenticated. On the other hand Mary claims a couple of document analysts saw nothing indicating the memos were not real, but neither did or could they say they were real. She fails to mention that many more document analysts strongly felt they could not be authentic.

One expert was able to reproduce the document letter for letter with Microsoft Word default settings. Strange coincidence since Microsoft Word was not available when the memos were claimed to have been written.

Sally Field's Emmy Performance

If mothers ruled the, ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place, Field bleated.

That's what Sally said during her acceptance speech at the recent Emmy awards. Michelle Malkin does not agree with Sally one iota. Sally Field Doesn't Speak for Me is Michelle's answer to Sally's comment about Motherhood.

Motherhood and peace-making are not synonymous. Motherhood requires ferocity, the will and resolve to protect one's own children at all costs, and a life-long commitment to sacrifice for a family's betterment and survival. Conflict avoidance is incompatible with good mothering.

The Animal world is full of mothers who fit Michelle's model much better than Sally's.

On the playground of life, Sally Field is the mom who looks the other way when the brat on the elementary school slide pushes your son to the ground or throws dirt in your daughter's face.

She's the mom who holds her tongue at the mall when thugs spew profanities and make crude gestures in front of her brood. She's the mom who tells her child never to point out when a teacher gets her facts wrong.

She's the mom who buys her teenager beer, condoms and a hotel room on prom night, because she'd rather give in than assert her parental authority and do battle.

On the other hand in a way Sally and Michelle are both right. Sally didn't realize when she said If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place she was right. Right because most mothers would not hesitate to react viciously to any attack on her young. There would be no warning, no diplomacy, no empty threats, and no retreat from confrontation. The offender would be pulverized immediately and completely. In this sense Sally is correct.

Lessons from life. Don't pull on Superman's cape, and don't make a Mother mad.

Chinese Pentagon Hacking

According to the on-line edition of the Financial Times of London, computer hackers have broken into the Pentagon's Computer Network.

The Chinese military hacked into a Pentagon computer network in June in the most successful cyber attack on the US defence department, say American ­officials.

The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the office of Robert Gates, defence secretary, but declined to say who it believed was behind the attack.

Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the People’s Liberation Army [PLA].

But this story does not end with Pentagon Hacking. Seems the Chinese have other interests too.

Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, raised reports of Chinese infiltration of German government computers with Wen Jiabao, China’s premier, in a visit to Beijing, after which the Chinese foreign ministry said the government opposed and forbade “any criminal acts undermining computer systems, including hacking”.

In defense the Beijing Government, they claim that they are often targets of Hackers themselves. Kind of like well we all do it, so what's the big deal.

The PLA regularly probes US military networks – and the Pentagon is widely assumed to scan Chinese networks – but US officials said the penetration in June raised concerns to a new level because of fears that China had shown it could disrupt systems at critical times.

Pentagon officials claim most of the Hacked information was "unclassified". In addition, Cyber Criminals often mask their Hacking by making the break-ins look like the work of someone else, such as a foreign government.

Hackers from numerous locations in China spent several months probing the Pentagon system before overcoming its defences, according to people familiar with the matter.

If sensitive information was compromised, few in Government would admit it. One area of concern, however, is the current use of BlackBerries. The National Security Council is considering whether restrictions on these devices may become necessary.

Karl Rove Resigns

According to the Wall Street Journal's Commentary article today (The Mark of Rove) by Paul Gigot, Deputy Chief of Staff to George Bush, Karl Rove will resign.

"I just think it's time," he says, adding that he first floated the idea of leaving to Mr. Bush a year ago. His friends confirm he had been talking about it with others even earlier. But Democrats took Congress, and he didn't want to depart on that sour note. He then thought he'd leave after the State of the Union, but the Iraq and immigration fights beckoned. Finally, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told senior White House aides that if they stayed past a certain point, they were obliged to remain to Jan. 20, 2009.

Mr. Rove has set a date of August 31^st for his resignation. He claims he has thought about resigning several times, and although he doesn't say so, it is felt the timing allows him to resign on his own terms.

As for the future of the Bush Presidency, Rove is very upbeat.

"He will move back up in the polls," says Mr. Rove, who interrupts my reference to Mr. Bush's 30% approval rating by saying it's heading close to "40%," and "higher than Congress."

For the Liberals who, to put it mildly, dislike Rove, this will probably be taken as a bitter-sweet decision.

"I'm a myth. There's the Mark of Rove," he says, with a bemused air. "I read about some of the things I'm supposed to have done, and I have to try not to laugh." He says the real target is Mr. Bush, whom many Democrats have never accepted as a legitimate president and "never will."

Most of the left considered him the "Evil Rove", but I suspect their real dislike for Mr. Rove was for 2 reasons. (1) They are jealous of his successful Political strategy and (2) he was a proxy for President Bush. The reaction from the Left to this news is going to be interesting.

Newsweek's Global Warming Bias

Bias. A particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

In the August 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek Magazine Sharon Begley has authored the Cover Story on Global Warming, where she shows her profound bias. (The Truth About Denial) Early in this article Ms. Begley quotes the following statement as made by a staffer to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who assumed the chair of the Senate's Environment Committee in January 2007.

A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she [the staffer] told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on.

But not contained in the article is any reference to the funding sources for the supporters of Global Warming. Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming exposes Al Gore, and many of his friends, who stand to make a fortune if they can sell Global Warming as fact. Thereby leaving the reader with the impression that Global Warming deniers are skewing the data for monetary gain, while the Global Warming preachers have no such prejudice. It is dishonest to suggest that only one side may be influenced money, when in fact both sides could be, but this does fits the definition of bias.

In addition Ms. Begley infers that results are being "bought" by Special Interests without offering a single example of skewed, biased, incomplete or inaccurate results. By making this accusation, Ms. Begley soils the reputation of any Scientist associated with an Energy Company or Group whose research conclusions don't conform to her preconceived ideas. In the Scientific Community, Reputation and therefore Respect of peers is paramount.

Ms. Begley further implies that these Special Interest groups succeeded in rendering useless any attempt by President Clinton to obtain Senate Ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.

Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one)...

But she makes no mention of the fact that the Senate did Vote on the Kyoto Agreement (S.RES.98) which

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter...

The Senate passed this item on 7/25/1997 by a vote of 95-0. This oversight constitutes the definition of bias. Further into her article, Ms. Begley states the following in reference to current President George W. Bush:

In March [2001], he [President George Bush] withdrew from the Kyoto treaty.

How can you withdraw from something to which you were never a party?

Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.

Most Deniers I have knowledge of don't hate being called deniers, rather they don't think the term is accurate. It is political name-calling. It's a term used to shut down honest debate about a subject whose cause and effects are not yet understood. So called Deniers do not deny that the Earth is Warming, or that Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) increases are largely due to man. They do argue that the World has at times been much warmer than today's predictions for the future. They do argue that more research is needed before drastic and Expensive Life-style changes are Politically Mandated. The research to date is subject to honest interpretation and differences of opinion as to cause and effect. In the simplest terms, the Global Warming Issue is not settled. See This Web Page for a rational discussion of Global Warming.

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is the only Greenhouse Gas over which man can have any real effect. But between 90 and 95% of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases is water vapor (H₂O), the rest is CO₂, Ozone, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other minor Greenhouse Gases. Atmospheric CO₂ is the result of both man and nature. About 1/2 of this Gas is the result of the Earth's natural processes, mainly Volcanoes. To eliminate the part attributable to man, is going to be very expensive and will have minimal effect. For an idea of the expense, see this previous post, and be sure to follow this link.

In summary, Newsweek has taken the low road with this cover story. This article by Sharon Begley is more opinion than fact. Is it Biased? I think so, but you should decide for yourself.

For another disection of this article see this post at NewsBusters.

Another Reason For Term Limits Updated

The AP is reporting tonight that Senator Ted Stevens' (R-AK) Alaskan Home has been searched by the FBI and the IRS (FBI, IRS Search Home of Sen. Ted Stevens). Search Warrants were issued in an investigation of a 2000 remodeling project which more than doubled the size of the Senators home.

Stevens, 83, has been under a federal investigation for a 2000 renovation project more than doubling the size of his home in Girdwood that was overseen by Bill Allen, a contractor who has pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska state legislators.

Stevens, the longest serving Republican Senator, has been elected to seven 6-year terms. This Senator is certainly not the only member of Congress to be charged or convicted of crimes which cost the taxpayers money, just the latest. Nor does either party have a lock on corruption. If we had term limits for Congress, we may not eliminate the bad apples, but at least there might be some house cleaning every so often. We already limit the President to 10 years. Why not limit members of Congress to 12 years. Thats two 6-year terms for Senators, or six 2-year terms for Representatives.

Update: According to another AP article (Lawmakers Being Investigated), besides Senator Stevens, also under investigation are House Republicans:

• Don Young of Alaska, 18th term. Young is under federal investigation as part of an ongoing corruption probe, according to a federal law enforcement official. Part of the Young investigation involves his campaign finance practices.
• John Doolittle of California, ninth term. The FBI in April searched his home in Oakton, Va., where his wife Julie ran a bookkeeping and event-planning business. Among her clients was now-jailed GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
• Jerry Lewis of California, 15th term. Prosecutors are examining his dealings with lobbyists and contractors during the time he chaired the House Appropriations Committee.
• Gary Miller of California, fifth term. FBI agents have interviewed officials in two towns that purchased property from Miller about the nature of the transactions and the tax implications. Miller denies any wrongdoing and says FBI agents have not contacted him.
• Rick Renzi of Arizona, third term. FBI agents recently raided his wife's insurance business amid reports that Renzi paid substantial back taxes to settle charges that his businesses improperly paid for his first congressional campaign.

The Democrats in the House that have been accused:

• William J. Jefferson of Louisiana, ninth term. Awaiting trial in January on federal charges of taking more than $500,000 in bribes by using his office to broker business deals in Africa. He pleaded innocent in June to the 16-count indictment. FBI agents raided his congressional office and his home, where they found $90,000 in a freezer.
• Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, 13th term. Mollohan stepped down from the House ethics committee after federal agents began a probe of federal funds he helped steer to nonprofit groups he founded.

Minimum Wage Increase

On July 24th the Federal Minimum Wage rose to $5.85/hr. And many states already have Minimum Wage mandates much higher. In my home state for instance the Minimum Wage is $7.50/hr. Raising the Minimum Wage is a "feel good" issue because it sounds good in theory, but in practice it actually hurts the people it is intended to help most.

The vast majority of Minimum Wage employees are unskilled or uneducated. Conditions easily remedied. Students, for instance may take such jobs to help pay for education. Upon graduation, they no longer make Minimum Wage. First-time job seekers may start with a Minimum Wage job, but soon gain the skills necessary to move into a higher paid position. Very few employees at the Minimum Wage Level are sole support of a family and most are 25 or younger. However, even if they are the family breadwinner, (a single parent for instance) there are Federal, State and Private money and training programs easily available to supplement income and educate (both academically and vocationally) those workers who wish to gain the skills/education necessary to advance.

Business is very competitive and as such maximizes profits by lowering costs or raising prices. One of the costs is Labor. Consequently if the Labor Cost goes too high to remain competitive, jobs are eliminated by automation or outsourcing. When this happens, the Minimum Wage earner is the first and deepest cut. These are the employees who, so the Politicians claimed, make up the families the increase in the Minimum Wage was designed to help. On June 24th the Employment Practices Institute published the following Press Release (Majority of Labor Economists Believe Minimum Wage Hikes Cause Unemployment).

An overwhelming majority of American labor economists agree that minimum wage hikes are an inefficient way to address the needs of poor families, according to a new national survey of the American Economic Association (AEA). The survey was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and sponsored by the Employment Policies Institute.

Just how deeply the increase in the Minimum Wage is going to lead to job elimination through automation and outsourcing remains to be seen. But it is clear that automation and outsourcing will produce an increase in the Unemployment Rate.

Research from David Neumark at the University of California at Irvine shows that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, low-skilled unemployment increases by 8 percent. His results also indicate that states fully affected by a $7.25 federal minimum wage will see young minority unemployment rates increase by as much as 15.6 percent.

Rather than Minimum Wage increases, doesn't it make more sense to put that money into education and skill development? Complaints are already heard about the disparity in compensation. Higher Unemployment rates will make the disparity worse.

More Playing Politics

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. Consequently the following is only my opinion. It is not Legal Advise and should not be relied upon as such.

---

It is clear that the Executive Branch of our Government (the President) is empowered by the Constitution to Nominate Judges to the Supreme Court. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law... [emphasis mine]

It is also clear that the Legislative Branch (specifically the Senate), as noted above, is empowered by the Constitution to use its powers to give advise and consent to the nominee.

What does that mean? In my opinion, this, in simplest terms, is how the system was meant to work. The President makes his choice. He may follow the advice of the Senate or anyone else as he wishes, but the choice is The Presidents alone. The Senate then determines the qualifications of the Presidents nominee to serve. Qualified by reason of Education and Experience should be the qualifications the Senate Considers. Obviously the ability to interpret the Constitution is necessarily a part of the qualifications. However, the Constitution is subject to different reasonable interpretations. No Senator should refuse to confirm just because the nominee doesn't agree with the Senators view, so long as the nominee's views are within the range of reasonable legal thought. And the Political views or party affiliation should not be part of the standard of judgment of qualifications, so long as the nominee demonstrates the ability to put personal feelings aside if they are inconsistent with legal documentation.

Now enter the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY).

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

This is an example of Senatorial obstructionism at its worst. Just as a CYA he adds the weasel phrase "except in extraordinary circumstances". But what does this mean. Based on the Senators past partisanship, it is reasonable to assume that he really means: Unless you agree with the Democrats, you will not be confirmed. Considering that Senator Schumer is part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, it is fair to infer that he is speaking for the Democratic Party as a Whole.

There is a process for the removal of a Supreme Court Justice. It is called Impeachment. But there is no talk of Supreme Court Justice Impeachment, so when the Senator makes the following claim, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is?

Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

The Senator is being disingenuous when he refuses to for strictly Political Reasons to vote for any nominee of President Bush.

The White House has justifiably fired back.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."

Is it any wonder that Congressional approval ratings are in the crapper?