Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

For regular readers of these pages, you've seen plenty of articles before about the relationship between solar activity and the earth's climate.

Now Investor's Business Daily editorializes, referencing some of the same material, that "greenhouse gases" might just save us from suffering through a worse global cooling period than we otherwise would...and much sooner than global warming alarmists could even imagine:

see "Should Big Chill Be A Bigger Worry?" (IBD Editorial, 6/26/07)
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=267750744226033

The other day, I posted a YouTube video of an interview with John Edwards, arguing that it shows he is unfit to be President because he clearly does not understand America or its Constitution.

Now, we have a radio interview of Ohio Republican (theoretically) George Voinovich by Sean Hannity in which Voinovich makes me wonder if Ohio voters by and large attended schools for "special" children.

Really, how could a person this senior be so ignorant and incompetent? How could be get elected so many times? I understand he's a so-called "moderate", but just like Lincoln Chaffee, I'd rather see Dems in charge for a while than Republicans in charge with people like Voinovich actually getting to vote on important legislation.

You can listen to the interview (in two parts) on this web page:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56414
Note: the page has been loading quite slowly, so be patient. It's worth the wait just so you fully understand that your leaders are not your betters.

-----------

[Adding insult to Voinovich's injury is this piece from the Wall Street Journal's John Fund...]

Master of the Details

The fate of the Senate immigration bill may be decided today if supporters can't muster 60 votes to shut off debate and proceed. Although 64 senators on Tuesday supported going forward with the bill, more than a dozen did so only to allow debate on 27 amendments.

If the bill does go to a full debate, many C-SPAN watchers are hoping Ohio GOP Senator George Voinovich will play a prominent role if for no other reason than his entertainment value. You'll recall Mr. Voinovich broke into tears on the Senate floor in 2005 in opposing the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, an opposition he later recanted. This week he echoed Sen. Richard Lugar's comments that the Iraqi troop surge had failed, but without any of his colleague's eloquence or depth.

Mr. Voinovich made the mistake of appearing on Sean Hannity's national radio show yesterday to speak on the immigration bill. The interview did not go well. Mr. Hannity's first question concerned the Fairness Doctrine, which liberal Democrats are seeking to revive as a means of imposing equal-time provisions on talk radio. Mr. Voinovich got off on the wrong foot by saying: "I'm all for the Fairness Doctrine, whatever that is."

When the discussion moved to immigration, Mr. Hannity proved to be more knowledgeable about what had happened on the Senate floor yesterday morning than the senator. When informed that an amendment by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison had failed, Mr. Voinovich responded, "I thought it passed because, frankly, I voted for it."

Mr. Voinovich certainly had a point about the ill-mannered and often ill-informed commentary on the immigration issue on talk radio. But he did nothing to improve the situation by putting on his best imitation of an arrogant solon who resented hearing from constituents: "I want everyone else to know: You do not intimidate George Voinovich. This is my 40th year in this business.... I've gotten calls from people that, basically, are intimidating me. They're saying, 'If you do this [vote for the bill], I'll do that [vote against you].'"

When Mr. Hannity pressed him on specifics of the legislation, Mr. Voinovich ducked by saying he had read "most" of the summaries of the bill. And he then launched into a tirade before hanging up on the ABC Radio/Fox News host. "I really don't think it's worthy to talk to you right now because you've got your mind [made] up, you're not really interested in hearing the other side of the coin. All you just want to hear is somebody agree with you. And I'm disappointed in you, because I had more respect for you. I wouldn't even have gone on this radio program with you if I hadn't thought that you'd give me an opportunity.... You haven't even given me a chance."

"You're running away because you can't answer a simple question," replied Mr. Hannity. With that, Senator Voinovich replied: "I hope next time around we have another subject that we can be more rational about." He then hung up. If Mr. Voinovich votes to kill the immigration bill today, it may be for no other reason than a desire to save himself from more embarrassment every time he talks about the subject.

-- John Fund

As my regular readers know, I am enthusiastic about both Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani. I believe one of them will be the nominee.

There is a lot of excitement about Thompson and he is polling exceptionally well for someone who hasn't spent a dime on advertising or even officially entered the race.

I am a big fan of Thompson's recent writing (at TownHall.com) and speeches in which he emphasizes first principles such as federalism and limited government.

Thompson and Giuliani are likely to have fairly similar positions on economic and foreign policy issues. At this point, leaving aside the down-and-dirty political mudslinging we'll likely see, the real differences between the two are, from a true policy standpoint, social issues (particularly abortion), and, from a political perception standpoint, the question of "who is the real conservative?".

I believe this question is a double-edged sword for conservatives (and for the record, I don't actually consider myself a conservative; I'm far more libertarian.)

The conservative base of the GOP will be very tempted by Fred Thompson, as they should be. He is smart, charismatic (enough to be on TV and in movies at least), folksy, and his career as an actor will lead many to obvious comparisons with Ronald Reagan. And based on the little I know right now about Thompson, it is easy to conceive of him as a very good and effective President were he to win the election.

But that last qualifier is a very big deal.

Although Rudy's lead over Republican opposition for the nomination has been slipping, primary because of Thompson's entry into the race, conservatives and libertarians alike must keep in mind that the brass ring is the election, not the nomination.

And while it is still VERY early in this process, internals of a recent Quinnipiac University poll show why I believe Rudy is still somewhat more likely to get the nomination than Fred: He is more likely to be able to win the general election.

For example, look at this recent Quinnipiac Poll:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1079

It shows Giuliani tied with or leading Hillary Clinton in three critical swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The analysis in the link above focuses on Giuliani's lead shrinking from prior polls, but that is not the key. The key is that Giuliani far outperforms the other Republican frontrunners.

Take particular note of Ohio. For a Democrat to win, (s)he needs to win every state that Al Gore won, plus Ohio. In this recent poll, and I re-emphasize that it is very early in the race, McCain and Thompson both trail Clinton and Obama. (Frighteningly for America, but not too surprising for a state with voters with the poor judgment to elect George Voinovich, Al Gore polls as beating all three Republicans in this survey.)

Pennsylvania is also critical: It is a very big state which went to Kerry over Bush by 144,000 votes (a 2% difference, so a 1% swing would change the outcome). The Quinnipiac poll shows Giuliani tied with Clinton and beating both Gore and Obama, whereas all three Democrats win head-to-head polls versus both Thompson and McCain.

Even if a Republican doesn't win Pennsylvania, it is critical that the race there be made competitive and that Democrats are forced to spend resources there and in other "blue states" which had a reasonable chance of voting for a Republican whom they find compelling.

As unlikely as it is that a Republican could win New York, Rudy's nomination would cause Democrats to have to spend a massive amount of time and money there, lessening their ability to focus on Ohio, Florida, or on states which were "red states" but by a small margin.

The other important internal in this poll, which you can see by comparing questions 3 and 9 in the poll detail, is that Giuliani does much better among women than the other Republican candidates.

The "gender gap" is a serious problem for Republicans, and Rudy is, in my view, the most likely candidate to fill in the gap a bit. Although Fred Thompson still has plenty of time to market himself to American men and women alike, his very nature as a 6'6" attorney with a gravelly voice is likely to remain much more appealing to male voters than to female.

Additionally, and more importantly, Giuliani owns the issue of security and fighting terrorism. The other Republicans do their best with it, and they're almost all much better than any Democrat, but safety and security is what Rudy is now famous for, and those issues have far more traction with women than things like federalism, low taxes, and the other important issues that Thompson has so far emphasized.

While I would be (based on what I know today) equally pleased to see Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson as our next President, us who care about the future of our nation must keep our eye on the prize, namely winning the general election. At the end of the day, my primary vote will go to whichever of these two candidates I believe has the best chance of winning the prize. The risk to our country of another Clinton presidency is far too high to vote for a candidate who might be philosophically slightly more pure but less likely to win.

By a vote of 46-53, the Senate has just voted not to close debate on the Immigration bill, effectively killing the bill. I strongly doubt whether they'll try to revive this bad legislation again.

It's the best thing that could have happened to Republicans. More details later....

see "U.S. Senate heads for crucial immigration vote" (Reuters, 6/28)
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2732384920070628

The best thing that can happen to the GOP and to the country, following Republicans voting to re-open debate on the Immigration Bill, is to aggressively crush the Bill. Otherwise, the GOP will lose substantial electoral support because of either the perception or reality of supporting a version of immigration that probably represents the worst of all possible worlds.

I am all for true immigration reform, including enforcing our borders and stronger penalties on employers...but it must be combined with a very large increase in the number of visas available for workers of all skill levels.

Although I have not read the bill (and neither have most of the Senators who will vote on it), it seems clear that it is a mess. The idea that illegals will pay big fines or return to their countries is just silly. The unions forced a reduction in the visa increase from 400,000 to 200,000.

While I don't believe most illegals actually want citizenship, we should take careful heed of the wishes of people like Ken Salazar (D-Oaxaca) (oops, I meant D-CO) who made it clear that he wants illegals to get the right to vote. Senators have also demonstrated an interest (in last year's failed immigration bill) to give illegals rights to receive Social Security.

There is no doubt that the Democrats are supporting this bill because they think it will buy them enough new voters (after 10 or 15 years, anyway) to become a nearly permanent majority. I think they're wrong as to the degree the bill would help them, but there is no doubt it would.

I would not argue to kill immigration reform just because it helped Democrats...if the reform were well thought out and to the benefit of the nation. But this bill is the deformed love child of John McCain and Ted Kennedy, and deserves to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

From the GOP's point of view, if they are wishy-washy on this, it will cost them dearly in the next election. I am not saying that the GOP should take a strongly anti-immigration position...that obviously didn't work in the last election and most Americans are pro-immigration as long as it's legal. Instead, Republicans should be screaming from the hilltops exactly why they're against this bill...and without just yelling "amnesty". Americans are too smart just to hear one word from a politician and believe him or her.

In any case, today's vote will be very interesting. The news stories say it will be close. I hope it's not that close, and that almost all of the Republicans who were not involved in drafting the bill (and possibly some who were, but I'm not hopeful) will vote against it, and then make a cogent explanation why to the American people.

As it has been for many months now, the biggest political negative for Republicans has been George Bush. From his refusal to veto anything other than stem cell research to his not firing Don Rumsfeld until after the election when it could have done it a month earlier to his support for this bill, it would be comical if it weren't so sad to see the head of the Party being the main cause of its destruction.

I hope that today's vote does not even gain a simple majority for passage, much less then 60% needed to overcome a filibuster.

And if enough Republican Senators are politically suicidal enough to support this bill that it actually gets through, we'll have to rely on the House Republicans to fix the Senate's mistake. While I hope it doesn't get that far, at least it would give House Republicans the chance to do something right...which we haven't seen from them in years.

As a financial markets professional, I am regularly amazed by how economically ignorant Lou Dobbs, one of our leading business talking heads, is.

His views opposing "outsourcing", for example, are based in pure emotion and not supported by any substantial data that I can find (it seems clear that outsourcing has not hurt overall employment in the class of people that would watch Dobbs' show).

But a piece he did recently on some of the provisions in the immigration bill really is an eye-opener. (See YouTube window below to watch the 3 1/2 minute piece.) I have not done any independent verification of Dobbs' claims, but it would be easy enough to do. Given the involvement of Ted Kennedy, who talks about "the people who deserve to benefit from this bill" (i.e. non-Americans who "deserve" access to American taxpayer dollars, and the language of Harry Reid who called illegals "undocumented Americans", nothing would surprise me.

Dobbs basically has it right when he says (in a different video clip) that "The Senate's Comprehensive Immigration Bill runs perilously close to being an outright deceit and fraud."

It is a shocking piece of political suicide by the Republican Party for their to be even a modicum of support for a bill which includes provisions described by Dobbs. President Bush probably cost the GOP control of the Senate by firing Donald Rumsfeld just after the last election instead of before it. He is substantially responsible, in addition to Congress, to demoralizing the GOP base by going along with massive Congressional overspending rather than governing as a Reaganite. And how, Bush is taking one last huge stab at the political fortunes of his party by supporting this Immigration Bill.

Let me be clear: I am not anti-immigration, including by Mexicans. I am anti-illegal immigration and against illegals being eligible for anything that is funded by American taxpayers. For example, the ideas that they should get in-state tuition or be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit are truly offensive to anyone with a sense of propriety and good government.

Another CNN/Dobbs report about some of the provisions of the Immigration Bill leaves me shaking my head, and again it makes me wonder how anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy, much less any Republican, could be supporting this.
(I wouldn't bother watching the comments from his viewers...just the first half of the piece)

I opened Google News this morning to find a startling report. I don't know what to make of it, i.e. is it good news or bad news, does it related to this week or this century, and how much should we care? Any thoughts from readers would be much appreciated.

See the headline of the first "Top Story" below....

see "House votes to ban aid to Saudi Arabia" (ABC News, 6/22/07)
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3308064

Last week, the US House of Representatives inserted a provision into a foreign aid bill which would eliminate US aid to Saudi Arabia. On balance, I think it's a good move, although certainly not financially significant given that aid totaled only $2.5 million during each of the last two years.

What occurs to me upon hearing this news is the question "Why not do the same to Mexico?"

For those who are not regular readers, let me be clear that I am not a "close the borders and throw them out" anti-immigration sort. I am very much pro-immigration...legal immigration, that is. I harbor no ill will toward Mexicans individually...not even the illegal ones, as long as they're here to work and not to try to game the system for free medical care, food stamps, or any other taxpayer- or consumer-funded benefit.

Consider the following facts about the Mexican economy:

• The "remittances" of US dollars sent back to Mexico by Mexicans working here are roughly equal to Mexico's oil revenue. (At $20 billion, remittances exceeded oil revenue in 2006, but with the decline in our housing market and the increase in oil prices, I do not believe that will turn out to be the case for 2007.)  According to a San Francisco Chronicle article from last year, "The money Mexican migrants send home almost equals the U.S. foreign aid budget for the entire world, said Arturo Valenzuela, director of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University and former head of Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration."
• Mexico is the 5th largest oil producer in the world (although their reserves are the 2nd lowest in the top 10.)
• Mexico is listed as an "Upper-middle-income" country by the World Bank
• Mexico is showing substantial decreases in poverty in recent years
• For 2006, Mexico is rated as the 14th largest economy in the world by the IMF

So why does Mexico continue to receive about $30 million a year in direct foreign aid from the US in addition to the military aid we contribute to fight the (fruitless) "war on drugs"?

As if the economics of the situation weren't enough to justify cutting off foreign aid to Mexico, the icing on the cake is the money the Mexican government spends to encourage and aid illegal immigration into the US. Most of you have heard about the comic-book style guide to sneaking into the US which was published and distributed by the Mexican government.

Now, according to the UK's Daily Telegraph, the Mexican government is planning to give hand-held satellite navigation devices to illegal border crossers. The Mexican government says it is for safety, but obviously it makes it very easy for people to find a vulnerable spot in the border and then give their friends the coordinates.

In these and plenty of other ways, the Mexican government is not simply complicit, but is actively involved, in the illegal migration of millions of their citizens into our country. It is not completely without foundation to call this migration an invasion.

Even if you don't go that far, it still strikes me as unconscionable for the United States to be giving money to a perpetually corrupt government which is using that money to send its poorest and least educated people across the border, to be some combination of our labor force and our burden. (Indeed, maybe that migration explains Mexico's dramatic decrease in poverty in recent years.)

If the House of Representatives believes that canceling aid to Saudi Arabia makes sense, I would argue that canceling aid to Mexico makes even more sense.

But given that the current furor over the Senate's Immigration Bill is more than anything about the Democrats and Republicans fighting for the current and future Latino vote in this country (if the Dems have their way, the illegals will get to vote, and whom do you think that would benefit?) I think the chances of aid to Mexico being eliminated are somewhere just south of zero.

In a case that has received a lot of attention, the Chung family, Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, DC, not only won against an insane plaintiff, but were also awarded costs from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an administrative law judge named Roy Pearson who will hopefully lose his job someday very soon, had sued the cleaners for losing a pair of suit pants (which they found and tried to return to him) and for not having his pants done the next day. He argued that their "satisfaction guaranteed" sign opened them to a massive daily fine for every day that he wasn't satisfied, and filed suit (pun intended) for $54 million (down from a prior claim of $67 million!).

Quoting from an AP news story on the verdict:

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Regardless of the current furor over the Senate Immigration Bill, I believe that America should welcome immigrants who truly come here to work, to integrate, and not to suckle off the teat of the American taxpayer. Not only do we need immigration for continued economic growth, but we also need them to fund Social Security which will be bankrupt even faster without immigrants than with them. Part of what attracts immigrants to America, especially truly entrepreneurial immigrants, is the idea that they'll get opportunity and a fair shake from our theoretically free-market, capitalist system and ethical judicial system. Clearly, courts get things wrong...even our Supreme Court has been spectacularly wrong with disturbing frequency lately, but even that is far different from the outright corruption that infests judiciaries in many other parts of the world.

Today's verdict sends exactly the right message to potential entrepreneurial immigrants: Just because you might get sued by a guy with a government job doesn't mean you'll lose if your position is just. OK, it doesn't mean you win, but at least you have a chance, and that's probably better than where you live now.

Note: For those of you interested in reading the actual court findings, you can do so by clicking here:
Read the FINDINGS

Thanks to Steve Moore for telling me about this interview.

In his recent (5/30/07) YouTube interview, Senator John Edwards demonstrates such a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of America and our Constitution that he should be simply disqualified to hold any political office.

Most of this interview (in YouTube window below) is quite dull and trite, but I strongly recommend that you watch the last minute or so, starting at 4:45 of the clip, where the interviewer asks Edwards a list of things and asks him which he views as rights and which as privileges.

It is truly shocking that the only item which Edwards considered a privilege rather than a right was the only item which is actually enshrined in the Constitution as a right.

And if that weren't bad enough, while Edwards thought about calling citizenship for immigrants a privilege, but just barely, if they had only worked here for a year, he then made it clear that after 5 years, US citizenship for anyone should be a right.

I would say that the socialist Edwards represents the most politically and economically ignorant wing of the Democratic Party, but given his reasonable chances of winning in Iowa, I suppose that that "wing" of the Party might actually represent its majority in many places. I truly hope (and may actually believe) that despite Americans deserved frustration with Iraq and President Bush, we are not masochistic and stupid enough to elect someone like John Edwards whose basic views can be summarized something like "I feel very guilty for my success and my country's success, and I'm certain that we must have done something terrible to have been so successful, so we must do everything we can not only to make rich people less rich, but to make our entire nation less American."

Thanks to G.T. at the Independence Institute's Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Party for this pearl...

A woman walks into a veterinarian's office holding a duck and says to the vet "Something's wrong with Donald! Can you please examine him?"

The vet says sure, and they go into the exam room where the vet looks carefully at the duck, feels for a heartbeat, listens for breath, and looks at its eyes, and says to the woman "I'm sorry, ma'am, but your duck is dead."

The woman says "No! Please, can you try some other test...maybe it's something else!"

The vet obliges, puts the duck down on the floor, and opens a nearby cage letting a black Labrador Retriever out. The dog walks around the duck several times, sniffing it and prodding it with its nose, but there is no response at all from the duck. The vet says "I'm sorry, ma'am, but your duck really is dead."

"No!", cries the woman again, "Can't you please try some other test? Anything!"

The vet is a bit exasperated but the woman obviously needs more certainty, so he goes into the next room and brings in a Siamese Cat which cautiously approaches the duck, sniffs it, then reaches out with its paw and pushes on the ducks head. The duck remains motionless.

The vet says to the woman, "I'm truly sorry, but I promise your duck is really dead and there really isn't anything more I can do."

The woman seems to accept the situation, thanks the vet for his time, and asks how much she owes.

The vet replies "That will be Sixteen Hundred and Twenty-Five dollars."

"What?" exclaims the woman? "How could that be???"

"Well," says the vet, "normally it would only be $25 to pronounce an animal deceased, but you ran up an extra $100 for lab work, and $1500 for a cat scan!"

Friday's editorial in the Washington Times about the immigration bill is one of the most powerful attacks on the bill I have seen:

see "The Terrorist Facilitation Act of 2007" (Washington Times Editorial, 6/22/07)
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/EDITORIAL/106220017/1013

see "Iran 'unable to take Australians'" (BBC News, 6/21/07)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6228342.stm

You've all heard about the incident in March when Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines, and made the British look quite bad...somewhere between wimpy and incompetent.

Now, from this BBC News story, we learn that Iran tried a similar stunt on an Australian patrol boat prior to taking the British.

But when it came to the Australians, we learn why we should be so proud to have had the Aussies as allies in more wars than any other country:

The BBC has been told the Australians re-boarded the vessel they had just searched, aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians and warned them to back off, using what was said to be "highly colourful language".

The Iranians withdrew, and the Australians were reportedly lifted off the ship by one of their own helicopters.

Being married to an Australian, and having lived there for a year and visited many times, I can only imagine what that "colourful languange" might have been. I'm sure the Iranians had never heard anything like it, and if they're lucky they never will again because the Aussie's will aim to kick some Iranian a**, unlike the apparently compliant British.

see "Pakistan hardliners honor bin Laden in Rushdie row" (Reuters, 6/21/07)
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL24311420070621

I went on a bit of a rant two days ago about Muslim reaction to the knighting of Salman Rushdie.

I pointed out then, as I have frequently that the West's tolerance for "diversity" is causing us to underestimate our enemy, and leading "radical Islam" (which is to say most of Islam) to believe that we are easy and ripe targets.

Now we get another perfect example of how Muslims think, this time from the Pakistan Ulema Council, which Reuters describes as "a group of hardline Pakistani Muslim clerics". These guys have given Osama bin Laden their highest award (not that it's worth anything) in response to Rushdie's knighthood.

In other words, the proper retaliation for "outrage", hurt feelings, or ridiculing a book would be mass murder.

I'm not sure how long it will take for the leaders of the Democratic Party to wake up and smell the jihad. I fear they won't do it until something happens that makes 9/11 seem like small potatoes, and even then they'll probably just say that the Islamofascists are simply misunderstood or that their attacks are our fault.

The more I think about these issues, the more amazed I am that any rational American would even consider voting for a Democratic candidate for President in 2008. What that says about our electorate is a topic for another day...

For some light Friday reading, I offer you these two articles from Canada's Financial Post.

The articles posit that due to natural cycles in solar activity we are closer to a dangerous global cooling than a dangerous warming.

Note that the second article contains a list of links to a series in a related newspaper: "The Deniers: The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science." For anyone who really wants to hear the side of the debate that you don't get in most US media, the articles are well worth reading.

Forget warming - beware the new ice age
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 15, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278&k=5606

Read the sunspots
R. Timothy Patterson, Financial Post, June 20, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&k=29751

Following Tuesday's announcement by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg that he had renounced his membership in the Republican Party and registered as unaffiliated, all the talk was about whether it meant Bloomberg was thinking of running for President and which candidate that might hurt most.

Even Bloomberg's direct statements that he is not a candidate are only leading to more speculation that he is, such as in this article from the Guardian (UK).

As for me, I believe Bloomberg that he will not be a candidate in 2008, though I could imagine him considering a run in 2012.

That said, Bloomberg is a very smart guy and probably realizes that Ross Perot did not get one electoral vote after spending $65 million fifteen years ago, although he did get close to 20% of the popular vote. Also, as weird as Ross Perot seemed, there was something interesting and compelling about him, especially at that time in our electoral history, and I do not see how Bloomberg can get anything like that level of grass roots support.

Furthermore, Bloomberg has been a Democrat his whole life until running for mayor of New York City in 2001. Does he think he could get the Democratic nomination? Maybe. Does he think he could get the Republican nomination? Almost certainly not. So, he is likely relegated to running as an independent if he runs, and certainly so for 2008.

While Bloomberg has more money than all the other candidates for President combined, he did not get that rich by being silly or wasteful. Therefore, I believe him that at least for the rest of his remaining two and a half years as mayor of New York, he will not be a candidate for President.

see "EU to drop idea of constitution" (BBC News, 6/20/07)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6222992.stm

Europeans must have been wondering just how much government humans could stand without being crushed under its weight. Thankfully, the Dutch and the French voted down the proposed European Constitution which would have destroyed much of national sovereignty on the continent.

Now, in recognition of British and Polish objections to parts of the proposed constitution as well as the low likelihood of French and Dutch voters changing their minds, the German EU delegation is proposing scrapping that constitution and replacing it with a "Reform Treaty" which will at least keep the EU from having a sole Foreign Minister (rather than each country dealing with its own national interest), and allowing countries to opt out of certain provisions.

Obviously that sort of document has a much better chance of passage than the prior monstrosity, but they'd better get it done soon because when Germany no longer holds the rotating EU Presidency, the smaller countries which hold it next will probably not have the political muscle to get anything major done. If it were up to me, I would try to stall the process so exactly that happens.

Humans already suffer from a surplus of government. What is so surprising is not that a couple of countries revolted at the idea of giving up control of their own nation to some super-bureaucrat in Brussels, but that so many countries voted to do just that.

Salman Rushdie is to be knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and Pakistan and Iran aren't happy about it. I find this to be excellent news, and I hope that more Western nations will do things that annoy the tender sensibilities of Muslim extremists.

Here are some perfect examples of just how unhinged Islamic countries are, quoting from a story in the Australian about the reaction to the knighthood announcement:

Some radicals burned effigies of Queen Elizabeth and Rushdie in fresh protests in Pakistan....

Britain in turn voiced "deep concern" over reported comments by Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq that the honouring of Rushdie justified suicide attacks....

Iran also summoned the British ambassador, Geoffrey Adams, to protest at the knighting of Rushdie, and the Iranian foreign ministry's director for Europe, Ebrahim Rahimpour, told him that the honour was a "provocative act", state media reported.

"The British government's insulting, suspicious and ill-considered act is an obvious sign of Islamophobia which has terribly hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims," Rahimpour was quoted as saying.

"The consequences of this provocation, which has angered Muslims, will be directed at the British queen and government."

For a people who repeatedly demonstrate that they know little beyond how to murder (whether foreigners (such as in London), other Muslim sects (such as in Iraq), or simply other political parties (such as in Gaza), it is rather amazing that they are so prone to "hurt feelings".

It is time for more knighthoods for people who have offended Islam (although Rushdie's body of work is so massive and so impressive that the uproar over the small part of "The Satanic Versus" to which Muslims object should be dwarfed by the admiration of all intellectuals for his incredible writing.)

It is time for more Danish cartoons.

It is time for civilized governments to tell Islamic governments that they will be held responsible for destructive actions of their citizens anywhere in the world. It is time to react angrily against baldfaced threats against the Queen, our President, or any citizens of democracies.

It is time for Iran and other Muslim nations to know that we are willing to live in peace if somehow they can do so (which I believe is not possible), but that despite the struggle we are having in Iraq, we can and will defend ourselves against them, and that we are fully capable of realizing and fighting World War IV against Islam if they do not keep their insanity confined to within their own borders.

Years...or centuries...of appeasing Islam has demonstrated conclusively that at best it accomplishes nothing, just as appeasing Hitler not only didn't stop him, it emboldened him into thinking his enemies had no backbone. It is far past time for civilization to stand up against anti-civilization, for reason to stand up against lunacy, for all other religions to stand up against Islam...not because it is "other" but because its raison d'etre is our slavery or death.

The renewed furor over Salman Rushdie is just the latest in a never-ending series of reminders that our enemy is implacable, murderous, and, by any modern definition, insane. And, like it or not, that enemy is Islam. Not simply "radical Islam", but Islam itself because it is inherently radical, intolerant, disloyal to country (and loyal to dogma and jihad) and unstoppable by pretty words and constant accommodation.

President Bush doesn't know much, but he knows that. If there is anything which he deserves credit for, it is not backing away from that realization even when it might help his polling results. With a little luck, Americans realize the facts of Islam as well and will not make the disastrous error of electing a Democrat to office just at a time when we need real strength in the White House, not pacifists or those whose decisions are based on popularity rather than principle and our very survival as a civilization.

PUBLISHED in the Boulder Daily Camera, 6/21/07
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/jun/21/no-headline---21elet/

re " Israel, a failed state" (Opinion, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/16/07)
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/jun/16/israel-a-failed-state/

Ida Audeh’s ridiculous views on Israel as “a failed state” would make me laugh due to its repeated truly idiotic statements if views like hers were not so dangerous and so prevalent on the left.

One reasonable measure of a country’s success is its financial markets; failed states are not conducive to entrepreneurship and the liberty necessary to create a vibrant economy. The current market cap (value of all shares) traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange is about $860 billion dollars. For comparison, the value of all Egyptian stocks is about 1/8th of that number and all Norwegian stocks are worth less than half that number. Even the value of the Swiss market is only about 15% higher than the value of Israeli stocks.

Can one imagine the Palestinians being able to stop murdering each other or attempting to murder Israelis long enough to build even one really successful company, one which would offer employment and a model of Palestinian success to their people?

UN resolutions are meaningless when they come from an organization which has turned into little more than an Israel-and-US-bashing club. Audeh’s reference to the many anti-Israel resolutions is like wondering why the world doesn’t pay more attention to anti-black resolutions of the KKK.

The idea that a successful liberal democracy, the only one in that entire part of the globe, has somehow failed, is ridiculous. What has failed is the attempt by Palestinians to claim any mantle of legitimacy when their only real goal is the elimination of Israel and their only tactics are terror and murder. The left’s blinkered hatred of Israel leads them to support some of the most truly evil forces on earth. We should not let people like Audeh go unchallenged as just simply having a different view any more than we let the KKK simply represent another equally valid alternative to modern political norms.

re "Waffling on an 'earmark' pledge" (Rocky Mountain News editorial, 6/15/07)
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/editorials/article/0,2777,DRMN_23964_5586484,00.html

To the Editor:

Your editorial on the Democrats' utter failure to truly reform earmarks reminds me of the story of the river otter and the scorpion: The scorpion asks for a ride across the river and the otter hesitatingly obliges. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the otter and as they are both sinking to their watery deaths, the otter asks the scorpion "Why did you sting me, knowing that it would kill us both?" The scorpion replies simply, "It's my nature."

Raising taxes, wasting money, and buying votes is simply in the Democrats' nature. They know no other way, and it is the height of folly to expect anything from them other than failing on pledges aimed at fiscal responsibility or simple good government. Democrats are proving once again that the best argument for Republicans is Democrats. Until the GOP gives an even better reason to vote for Republicans, however, we may be stuck swimming with political scorpions. Just don't be surprised when you feel the sting.

This blog piece originally referred to the article linked below. However, several commenters, including the Freak (who is far from an enviro-wacko) have convinced me that the original article (not by me) was poorly researched and misleading. Therefore, I am deleting the text of the article from my site. You can still read the article at the link below if you like, but with the caveat that it is likely not a good piece of journalism.

It's too bad because I really don't like the holier-than-though attitude of many Prius buyers who act as if they're superior to others because they're buying a little hybrid...

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Thanks to Patrick for sending this along...

In the following video from 1992, VP Candidate Al Gore blasts President George H. W. Bush for not being nearly aggressive enough in dealing with a "murderous and vicious" Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and in particular ignoring Saddam's desire to create a nuclear weapons program and not retaliating against actual or planned terrorist attacks (i.e. the Achille Lauro, or the group who wanted to blow up the Rome airport) which had ties to Iraq.

I just love this line by Al Gore: "Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far far beyond the point of folly."

The entire video clip is just over 9 minutes long and well worth watching, both to remind yourself of the actual history of Saddam's Iraq, and to remind liberals who complain about the fundamental premise of our actions there. (This is obviously not to say that the war has been well-managed, but that's an entirely different argument from saying that it was wrong to begin with...and even if you believe it was wrong, that does not eliminate the tremendous hypocrisy of Al Gore and friends.

Why is it that "liberals" from Jimmy Carter to much of Europe believe that Israel has a responsibility to make peace with the Palestinians, especially when Hamas is in charge?

Today's news is just the latest example of how the Palestinians are essentially undomesticated animals who happen to be well-armed.

See "Hamas overruns rival Fatah's key posts" (AP via Yahoo! News, 6/14/07)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

The first paragraph of that article says it all:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas fighters overran two of the rival Fatah movement's most important security command centers in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, and witnesses said the victors dragged vanquished gunmen into the street and shot them to death execution-style.

For the record, the Wall Street Journal disagrees with my view that the recent "enemy combatant" ruling was correct, and they believe it will be overturned:

see "Al Qaeda's American Harbor"
A bad decision likely to be overturned.
Opinion Journal, June 14, 2007

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010207

OK, so I'm a little late on this one, but it's worth repeating for those of you who missed it:

About a week ago, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) while speaking on the floor of the Senate talked about the 12-million-or-more illegal aliens here in the USA as "undocumented Americans".

You can see it for yourself right here:

[I don't know what is more amazing, that someone as weasely (is that word?) as Harry Reid is Majority Leader of the United States Senate or that the opposition party (i.e. the Republicans) can't muster an obviously preferable alternative to such bad government.]

In any case, we must not let our government behave as if the millions of illegals are Americans simply by virtue of being here. It is a recipe for disaster for the country, with the only likely beneficiary being the Democratic Party who wants to create several million more people dependent on redistributing income, and getting them the right to vote for that redistribution.

I don't know what it will take for voters to toss people like Reid under the bus, but at the end of the day I suppose there's a lot of truth to the maxim that "people get the government they deserve." Unfortunately for us, Reid should be in the government of Mexico rather than in the USA since he seems more interested in serving people from outside our borders rather than citizens, with a special place in his heart for those here illegally.

Is it any surprise that Harry Reid's approval rating is now at 19%, substantially lower than our exceptionally unpopular President?