Fun & Frivolity: 50 Years Of Math Education

This week's finishing fun and frivolity highlights the evolution of our educational system:

1. Teaching Math In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful old-growth hardwood forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? Remember, there are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's okay.

6. Teaching Math In 2007
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Have a great weekend!

Environmentalists Wild Predictions

Here's a great article by Walter E. Williams that gives us some history of environmentalist wacko claims:

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

The facts are facts, and they don't tell us that any action is imminently necessary.  If anything, the facts tell us to leave the whole subject alone because these are all naturally occurring, cyclical processes, most of which we couldn't have a noticeable effect on if we tried.  This history of wacko environmentalists is long and almost universally incorrect.

When will people -- especially those in leadership positions -- realize this and stop pandering to it?  Americans need to put a leash on their elected 'leaders' and guide them away from this nonsense before they can enact some dangerously far-reaching legislation to 'fix' a problem that doesn't exist while doing real damage to real people.  This is going to be a real issue in the next few years because all three of our presidential candidates have bought into the global warming hysteria hook, line, and sinker.  As with illegal immigration, it's up to the grass-roots American citizen to put a stop to the ridiculous ignorant idiocy found at the highest levels of our government.

There's my two cents.

The Polar Bear Fiasco

Well, the wacko environmental nitwits have scored a major victory with the recent kerfuffle about polar bears.  In case you haven't seen it, polar bears have been added to the 'threatened' species list due to global warming.  Problem is, they're not threatened.  In fact, they're in just about the best shape they've been in since anyone was counting.  Senator Jim Inhofe provides some numbers:

Lost in the debate is the fact that polar bear numbers have dramatically increased over the past forty years – a fact even liberal environmental activists are forced to concede. According to Canadian scientists, 11 of the 13 bear populations are stable, with some increasing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates that there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. These numbers are substantially up from lows estimates in the range of 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s.

Once again, environmentalists never allow facts to get in the way of their hysteria.  Though the ruling was made on the 'best available' data, that data is largely computer modeling that is suspect at best:

"Essentially, the polar bear's population numbers are up five times from 40 or 50 years ago. The entire listing is based on unproven computer model scenarios. Notice I didn't say 'forecast' because even the UN climate models now admit that these climate models are not predictions or forecasts; they're merely scenarios," he explains. "So they're basing it on these computer models, which top forecasting experts – one of them being Dr. Scott Armstrong from University of Pennsylvania – [have] said ... violate the basic methodology used [and] the basic principles of forecasting," [minority communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Marc] Morano contends.

Why is this a big deal?  Because, the flimsy argument these lobbyists used to get polar bears listed is that greenhouse gas emissions were causing ice to disappear, which is endangering the habitat of polar bears.  Now that polar bears are protected, the government is forced to take further actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Guess what that means?

More regulation, more restriction, more money out of your pocket.  And all to protect an species that has quintupled its population in the past half century.

How's that for environmental lunacy?

Fortunately, there is a bit of sanity on the horizon:

Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin is taking on the Bush administration's eco-pandering decision to put polar bears on the threatened species list. Via Reuters comes news that Alaska will file suit to block the move. With staunch, sane, principled conservatives like Gov. Palin and Sen. James Inhofe taking a stand, there's hope–however dwindling–for the GOP yet.

Here's the reason she's trying to stop the listing:

The Republican governor has argued that the ice-dependent polar bear, the first mammal granted Endangered Species Act listing because of global warming, does not need additional protections.

"We believe that the listing was unwarranted and that it's unprecedented to list a currently healthy population based on uncertain climate models," said Alaska Assistant Attorney General Steven Daugherty.

Even though [U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne enacted a rule aimed at precluding any new restrictions on oil and gas operations as a result of the listing, the Palin administration believes a wide variety of other development activities in Alaska would be hampered if the listing goes through, Daugherty said.

Any development or activity requiring federal permits or using federal funds would have to engage in a "consultation" process to ensure that polar bears are not harmed, he said.

That consultation, mandated by the Endangered Species Act, "is a long and time-consuming process," he said. "It's just, basically, a big time-and-money-waster."

But wait...there's more!  Here's the really fun part:

The Bush administration's listing was an act of submission in the face of lawsuits from environmental activist groups.

As usual with acts of submission, this one didn't satisfy the demanders. They've gone back to court to sue because the listing doesn't "include steps against global warming."

So, let's summarize.  The fact is that the polar bear population is robust, about five times what it was half a century ago.  Due purely to the threat of lawsuits from environmentalist wackos, the decision was still made to list polar bears as 'threatened' using a computer model of a scenario that might happen in the future as justification.  As a result, the economy of Alaska -- via decreased industry, lost jobs, more regulation, and a lengthy consultation process -- will take a major hit.  As if that wasn't enough, these same environmentalist wackos are still pushing for further concessions about global warming itself.

The point here is that REAL PEOPLE are going to be harmed because of this!  This is a microcosm of the entire environmentalist movement, and I hope you understand what's going on here.  Hysteria combined with lawsuits based on limited/faulty data are going to damage the Alaskan economy.  This is what these environmentalists want for the entire country, and the entire world!  Don't believe me?

Now that they've gotten the polar bear protected, they're after the Pacific walrus, again despite the fact that it is not in danger.  This destructive nonsense won't stop until Americans finally wake up and demand -- DEMAND -- a stop to it.

There's my two cents.

War Rumblings

I've got a bunch of war stories that I wanted to pass along to you.  First, let's start with some more good news: attacks in Iraq are at a 4-year low.  What we're seeing now is success that only the Democrats can reverse (if we let them).  Part of the reason is that we've seen a bunch of new military leaders capable of adapting to the vastly different type of warfare that a counter-insurgency requires.  History shows us that the leaders who can make such adaptations are the ones who win campaigns.  Fortunately, it appears we still have some very, very good men working their way up the ranks of the military.

That's good, because though the cost of the war has been very high, it is far less than the cost of failure (hat tip Heavy-Handed Politics).  Ed Feulner writes at CNS News that " It's one thing to put a price tag on something. It's another to figure out its cost."  As an example, some economists have estimated the cost of the war as high as $5 trillion, but that's based on the incorrect assumption that the war has no benefits.  Feulner offers some contradictory suggestions:

Last year the Pentagon estimated 19,000 enemy militants had been killed since 2003. That number has certainly risen since then. An additional 25,000 militants are in military custody. That's quite a few dangerous individuals no longer around to attack Americans.

Our military intervention also has allowed Iraqis to experience freedom, something they were systematically denied during the decades Saddam Hussein ruled their country.

Iraq is the first Middle Eastern country with a constitution written by its citizens. Iraq's government may be imperfect, but at least it has democratic legitimacy -- unlike neighboring Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria.

In addition, the wars have given millions of women basic human rights they were denied by their oppressors. Under the Taliban, for example, Afghan women weren't allowed to go to school, let alone work or vote. Today women serve in Afghanistan's elected legislature.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is expanding its authority. Recently, Iraqi troops -- without help from Americans -- pushed into Baghdad's troubled Sadr City. They took control of the area without facing any significant resistance. That follows a similarly successful mission in Basra.

His conclusion:

According to researchers from Simon Fraser University in Canada, global terrorism is declining. Their Human Security Report Project found that fatalities from terrorist attacks have decreased 40 per cent since 2001. That's a very tangible benefit -- for America and for the world.

Yes, winning a war is expensive. But losing would be even more costly. And you can't put a price tag on true victory.

And, don't forget, Americans have an inherent lack of respect for losers.  That's why there have been literally dozens of unsuccessful attempts (by the Democrats) at ending the war prematurely - as much as the American people don't like the war, they like the idea of losing the war even less.  This is something the Democrats need to keep in mind, or it will come back to kick them in their own teeth.

Now let's take a look at some other areas around the world.  Iran continues to be problematic.  It appears they may be forming new bonds with another state sponsor of terrorism, Syria.  Regardless of their partnerships, they continue to accelerate their own nuclear program.  There's even more evidence out there that they'll have enough nuclear material for at least one bomb within the next year.  But it's all for peaceful purposes, of course.  Perhaps most disturbingly, even the Middle East fears a nuclear Iran.  If that happens, the balance of power in the entire region will be thrown out of whack, and there is no telling what Iran will do to bully its neighbors.  If you think tensions are high now, just wait until Iran proclaims they have nukes and then throws out a few demands or threatens to use them.  Or, how about this scenario: even though Al Qaeda has been decimated in Iraq, they're still out there.  Iran finally makes a nuclear bomb, then gives/sells it to Al Qaeda to hit America or Israel, achieving one of their own objectives while officially denying any involvement.  Al Qaeda wouldn't care one bit that Iran threw them under the bus because they've carried off an attack that makes 9/11 look piddly.  They'd be happy to take sole credit for it.  Far-fetched?  I think not, especially since the evidence is mounting that Iran and Al Qaeda have joined forces.

Outside of actual nations, there are plenty of other dangers out there.  For one thing, Right Truth shares that there have long been plans for naval jihad, and those plans will only become more likely if Barack Obama becomes President.  Another interesting tidbit from Right Truth is that Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is making some statements that Hezbollah is one of the biggest dangers to America in the world today.

And back to Syria, where a shipment of missile parts was recently intercepted.  Michelle Malkin has the details:

I'm a big fan of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which I think will go down as a great diplomatic and security success of the Bush administration (and of John Bolton, who gets much of the credit for setting it up). The problem with the PSI is that it's supposed to be secret. When it works right, and a boatload of plutonium or guidance systems or rocket fuel gets pinched because a country called Crimestoppers, you and I don't even hear about it.

Occasionally, PSI news slips out. And today we have another one in the "win" column for the PSI:

"One example of its [the PSI's] success occurred in February 2007, when four nations represented in this room worked together to interdict equipment bound for Syria - equipment that could have been used to test ballistic missile components," Mr Hadley said at a conference to mark PSI's fifth anniversary.

"Interdictions like this one have been successful all over the world - and have stopped many shipments of sensitive materials destined for Iran, North Korea, and Syria," he said, providing no further details.

She asks the key question:

As I said, there are good reasons for keeping a lot of this stuff secret…but I'd sure like to know where these particular missile-testing doodads were coming from. Is it, for example, a country that Obama wants to open unconditional negotiations with?

Finally, it appears that the Church of England is throwing in the towel:

At the Church of England's official newspaper, an extraordinary (in a very bad way) editorial says Britain will be an Islamic state within 30 years.

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.

This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims.

Boy, if that's not a scary thought, I don't know what is!  Again, I would point out that America generally follows the U.K., and this is another example of how we need to see what is happening across the pond and refuse to allow it to occur here at home.

So, there's your update on the war effort in Iraq and against terrorism in general.  Lots of good stuff, certainly things that responsible citizens need to know about.  This stuff will not go away; I firmly believe that the war against radical Islam (in the form of nations or terrorist groups) is the fight of our generation.  We will either win it or lose it.

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

Here is today's link roundup. It's a bit of a mish-mash, so I didn't even mess with categorization. Still, it's good stuff, so check it out!

• If we could talk to the animals.
  
• Wisdom from Teddy Roosevelt.
  
• Feminism meets motherhood (and motherhood wins).
  
• Fox is #1.
  
• UMC internal struggles, part 1.
• UMC internal struggles, part 2.
  
• U.N. Peacekeepers abuse children.
  
• The crime of being white.
  
• Planned Parenthood sued for $50 million for botching abortion on minor.
  
• U.S. economy grows in Q1 (sorry, no recession!).
  
• Climbing Mt. Everest is more important to Google than Memorial Day.
• Shamnesty McCain actually didn't get the message...
  

Have a happy Friday!

Sound Familiar?

A great piece from Victor Davis Hanson:

Here is how our baby-boom generation solves problems:

— Recently, George Bush went to Saudi Arabia to ask the ruling House of Saud to pump more oil. That request had about as much chance of success as the Democratic-led congressional effort to “sue” the Saudis in American courts for their selfish “price-gouging.”

The current debate about energy in the United States has devolved into doing the same old thing — consume, don’t produce and complain — while somehow expecting different results. Congress talks endlessly about the bright future of wind, solar and new fuels, while it stops us from getting through the messy present by utilizing abundant coal, shale and tar sands; nuclear power; and oil still untapped in Alaska and off our coasts.

— For the past five years, we fretted over a “housing boom” that had priced an entire generation out of the market. In response, government and lending agencies got “creative” by relaxing standards to allow shaky “first-time” buyers into the red-hot market of high-priced homes. Home-improvement TV shows proliferated on how to “flip” houses and buy “no-down-payment” properties.

When the bubble inevitably burst, cries of outrage followed about how “they” (never “we”) caused a “depression” in housing. Our leaders shrieked about greedy lenders and incompetent regulators who foreclosed on us — never that the American people themselves caused much of the speculation problem, or that housing prices are finally becoming affordable again for new couples.

— Over 70 percent of the American people, and a majority of Democratic senators, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein — overwhelming support for the administration’s war that rose even higher as a brilliant campaign finished off the Baathists in three weeks.

But when a messy insurgency erupted, suddenly we heard that our victory was ruined by “their stupid occupation.”

— The current Social Security system is unsustainable. But the baby boomers who gave us Botox aren’t about to up the retirement age and freeze their own cost-of-living hikes to allow the cash-strapped next generation a little help in paying for our out-of-control benefits.

There is a pattern in all these dilemmas. And it is not conservative-versus-liberal politics, but generational chaos. Those who came of age in the 1960s now hold the reins of power and influence — and we are starting to see why their values have worried almost everyone for nearly a half-century.

History has seen something like them before in the “blame them” years of Demosthenes’ Athens, the self-indulgence of Julio-Claudian Rome, the “after me, the deluge” generation of late 18th-century France, the Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.

What are the baby boomers’ collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don’t drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.

There are never bad and worse choices, but only a Never Never Land of good and even-better alternatives. Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners.

When things don’t go well, we always blame someone else. Why drill off Santa Barbara or Alaska when we can sue those terrible Saudis for not putting more oil platforms in their Persian Gulf?

And why accept that the conduct of all wars is flawed and victory goes usually to those who persevere in making the needed adjustments when we can just keep pointing fingers at the official who disbanded the Iraqi army or sent too few troops after the invasion?

The sense of self-importance is never far away. We “earned” our generous unsustainable Social Security benefits, so why should we have to suffer by cutting them?

Sociologists have correctly diagnosed the perfect storm that created the “me” generation — sudden postwar affluence, sacrificing parents who did not wish us to suffer as they had in the Great Depression and World War II, and the rise of therapeutic education that encouraged self-indulgence.

Perhaps the greatest trademark of the 1960s cohort was self-congratulation. Baby boomers alone claimed to have brought about changes in civil rights, women’s liberation and environmental awareness — as if these were not prior concerns of earlier generations.

We apparently created all of our wealth rather than having inherited our roads, schools and bountiful infrastructure from someone else. And in our self-absorption, no one accepted that our notorious appetites created more problems than our supposed “caring” solved.

Our present problems were not really caused by an unpopular president, a spendthrift Congress, the neocon bogeymen, the greedy Saudis, shifty bankers or corporate oilmen in black hats and handlebar moustaches — much less the anonymous “they.”

The fault of this age, dear baby boomers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

This column illustrates the difference between people who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and those who cannot. Hanson states it does not break down along conservative/liberal lines, but I would disagree with him on that. I think that one of the hallmarks of conservatism is the responsibility factor, and that a definite indicator of liberalism is the complete refusal of the same.

I could be wrong, but is it any coincidence that the liberal elitists who are trying to run the country are the very same people who refuse to take responsibility for any of their own failed policies of the last half century?

There's my two cents.

Commenting On Obama's Latest Gaffe

In response to my post about Obama's latest gaffe (confusing the Nazi concentration camp that his uncle helped liberate), an anonymous person commented that this simple mistake shouldn't make him unqualified for President, as I suggested. Apparently, this is a sentiment that is being shared by a number of people, so I wanted to post a great response from Little Green Footballs that summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

The Washington Post “Fact Checker” has been going very easy on Barack Obama, but today they’re actually asking the pertinent question about Obama’s “Auschwitz” tale: Where in the world is Auschwitz? - Fact Checker.

Granted, it is getting late in the campaign. The candidates are tired, and prone to making silly mistakes. Many Americans might have problems distinguishing Buchenwald and Ohrdruf from Auschwitz. But should we not expect more from a Harvard-educated presidential candidate? Is it too much to ask that an aspiring commander-in-chief knows (1) that Auschwitz (like many of the other Nazi death camps) is in Poland, and (2) that the eastern advance of the U.S. Army in World War II stopped on the river Elbe? Let me know what you think.

Yes, we should expect more from any presidential candidate, not just one educated at Harvard. I’ve written several times that I suspect Barack Obama of being almost completely ignorant of world history. All it would take to reveal the depths of this ignorance would be a few serious historical questions from a reporter who isn’t blinded by the messiah’s halo—but nobody seems to care.

And there you have it. It's one thing for Americans to mix up historical references; it's quite another for someone who has a 50/50 chance of becoming our next President to do it. Not that a President has to be infallible, but shouldn't the knowledge of someone whose daily decisions actually dictate history be a notch or two above the rest of us?

In my opinion, this is yet another indicator that Barack Obama is supremely unqualified for the White House, and the sentiments expressed by my commenter are a great example of how Obama is viewed by a scary-big section of the population as a savior. They believe in him, so they have stopped thinking about what he says and does, refusing to consider or acknowledge anything that might lead one to think he isn't a genius messiah who will save mankind by next February.

There's my two cents.

The Culture Of Death

For once, I'm not going to use the words 'culture of death' in reference to Islamic radicalism. Instead, I'm going to use it in reference to the American Left. Ken Connor writes a column at Townhall.com that illustrates how the culture of death comes about gradually, and what its effects are. Take a good look:

Even the most despicable ideas can be made palatable when euphemisms are used to spin them. That's why abortion advocates call themselves "pro-choice" rather than "pro abortion." It's also why they talk about "terminating a pregnancy" rather than "killing a baby." Controlling the language not only controls the argument, it often determines the outcome of the argument.

Proponents of euthanasia understand the power of language in shaping debate. Therefore, instead of using the term "physician-assisted suicide" to describe the practice they advocate, they use euphemisms like "death with dignity" and "end of life choices" to sugar coat the reality of the killings they have in view. They know the term "physician-assisted suicide" does not poll well, so they try to disguise the real nature of what it is they are championing. Since people are inherently uncomfortable with the notion that those trained in the healing arts would aid and abet the killing of their patients, euphemisms are used to conceal the true nature of what's involved. Everyone wants to die with dignity. Thus, like abortion, killing oneself with a doctor's assistance becomes just another "choice."

Many in the medical community are complicit in this deception, and, although doctors were once trained to "do no harm," they are now fostering it through the deceptive use of rhetoric. A recent New York Times article, written by Jane Gross, describes one such deception. The article explains that a new practice called "slow medicine" has gained support in medical communities in recent years. The goal of slow medicine is to encourage "physicians to put on the brakes when considering care that may have high risks and limitedrewards for the elderly, and it educates patients and families how to push back against emergency room trips and hospitalizations designed for those with treatable illnesses…." [emphasis added]. Thus, slow medicine seeks to aid doctors, families, and patients in resisting medical efforts to cure treatable illnesses.

When first confronted with the slow medicine approach, patients understandably find it offensive. The New York Times article reports that Kendal at Hanover, a retirement community which encourages the slow medicine approach, "begins by asking newcomers whether they want to be resuscitated or go to the hospital and under what circumstances." Brenda Jordan, a nurse practitioner at Kendal, explains, "'They give me an amazingly puzzled look, like "Why wouldn't I?"'" This reaction is completely natural and in keeping with any patient who values their own life. Even Dr. Tom Rosenthal, UCLA's chief medical officer and a believer in slow medicine, admits, "The culture has a built-in bias that everything that can be done will be done."

To overcome that instinctive cultural bias, the Kendal staff steps in to explain things to its patients. While the explanation is couched in quality of life terms and foreboding statistics, underneath lies a utilitarian concern never overtly addressed. In her article, Gross explains, "The costliest patients—the elderly with chronic illnesses—are the only group with universal health coverage under Medicare, leading to huge federal expenditures that experts agree are unsustainable as boomers age." Thus, there are financial benefits that flow from every elderly person's decision to "die with dignity."

Recent experience in The Netherlands illustrates where deceptive language about euthanasia can lead. When The Netherlands first legalized euthanasia, it was only allowed in rare cases of "intolerable suffering." "The guidelines were designed specifically to keep assisted suicide occurrences few and far between by establishing demanding conditions that had to be met, at the risk of criminal prosecution." Yet doctors soon began interpreting these guidelines broadly, and the government and the courts did almost nothing to prevent it. Now the Netherlands, under its euthanasia law, allows the killing of infants with non-life threatening birth defects. Additionally, Dutch doctors are euthanizing patients without their permission. Repeated studies have demonstrated that 900-1000 patients experience "termination without request or consent" every year. The Dutch government usually turns a blind eye to this illegal practice as well.

If The Netherlands is any indication, the citizens of the United States ought to guard aggressively against the rhetorical gyrations of euthanasia's proponents. No matter how flowery their language is, they promote the killing of human beings. They propose a "right to die" but, in actuality, they want the right to kill.

Now, I just want to point out two things to put this article into context. First, think about how the liberal Left always seeks to twist words into a new definition - from mere 'tolerance' to active 'endorsement', from 'liberal' to 'progressive', and so on. They can't be completely honest because the truth of what they are trying to do is rarely accepted by a majority of the American people. But, they have learned that by couching their agenda in politically correct terms, they can push their ideas forward without people really knowing what they're doing.

If we always talked about being 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice', how do you think that would change the dialogue? Do you think it might change some people's minds if we discussed 'killing the baby' rather than 'terminating the pregnancy'? Of course it would.

If liberals didn't use politically correct terms, people would never go along with their ideas. You can almost always sniff out liberalism because of its flowery language and warm fuzzy images. Unfortunately, hiding beneath the cuddly surface is a festering pool of vile muck that is the truth of their agenda.

The culture of death can plainly be seen from the horrible actions in the Netherlands. Are we seriously going down the same road in America that is now causing as many as 1,000 deaths without request or consent in the Netherlands?! Last I checked, that's called murder. The society that stands idly by and allows that is a society that has embraced death without flinching.

Despite wrapping it in a warm fuzzy blanket, the liberal Left has thoroughly embraced this culture of death, whether it's in reference to an unborn baby or an inconvenient elder, and it is only a righteous and morally upright nation that will forcefully refuse this embrace.

What will America do? What will you do?

There's my two cents.

Bailout Madness

Michelle Malkin has the run-down on one of the people who stands to benefit from a mortgage bailout: California Democrat Congresswoman Laura Richardson. The summary:

Quick refresher: On May 21, we learned that Richardson had bailed on a Sacramento home and walked away from her $535,000 mortgage on the property. She denied the charges. On May 22, evidence piled up that contradicted her denial; moreover, we learned that she didn’t bother to pay utility fees and property taxes on the house. On top of that, the Daily Breeze confirmed that she did, in fact, receive a per diem housing allowance from the California state government. This woman has the gall to fashion herself a spokeswoman on behalf of aggrieved homeowners and wants to testify in front of the Senate while she swims in debt.

But there's more:

Turns out she has defaulted on not one, but three home loans–yet somehow managed to loan her election campaign $77,500. In fact, it appears there is a pattern here of cashing out her homes to fill her campaign coffers.

So why haven't we heard any outrage from Congress on this? Malkin suggests the following:

Because it would upset the bipartisan narrative that all homeowners are victims, all lenders are sharks, and that no bad incentives to walk away exist.

This is truly disgusting! Not only is this woman blatantly stiffing the American people by defaulting on three separate mortgages and various bills (since we'll end up paying for her stuff via a federal bailout), but she is a current member of Congress! I'd say this warrants a call to all of our Representatives, does it not? And what happened to Nancy Pelosi's 'most ethical Congress in history'? This ain't it!

Where are the Republicans, in particular, who supposedly stand for fiscal responsibility?? This is the kind of issue that can drive a stake through the heart of an election opponent, and yet there is nothing but crickets on the other side! This clearly means that the Republican party is in it up to their snooty noses right alongside the Democrat party.

And that, ultimately, means that you and I are going to get screwed.

On a related note, take a look at these two graphics posted at Marginalizing Morons:

This first picture shows the most delinquent mortgage borrowers. The second picture (below) shows a Red/Blue state comparison:




Why do you suppose it is that there is a startling correlation between delinquent mortgages and blue (i.e. Democrat controlled) states?

Hmmm...I'll give you three guesses, but the first two don't count.

There's my two cents.

In Defense Of Voter ID

Missouri is one of the battlefront states in the voter ID battle this year, with a potential bill saying that not only is it okay to require voter ID, but that citizenship must be verified for anyone to be registered to vote. Since this will likely be a big deal as we move close to the election this November, I wanted to share this articleHans A. von Spakovsky with you in defense of voter ID. It's a bit long, but will really help you understand the facts behind the hysteria. I've emphasized some of the key points...

The ink was barely dry on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Crawford case upholding Indiana’s voter-identification law before the editorial pages were filled with dire predictions of the mass disenfranchisement of voters. The New York Times thundered that “disadvantaged groups” would be “discouraged from casting ballots.” Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution insulted the author of the lead opinion, staunchly liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, writing that it was no surprise that “a group of wealthy male jurists favors suppression of the franchise…[a]fter all, the Founding Fathers believed that only white men should have the vote.” She must have been truly dismayed last year when Georgia’s voter-ID law was also upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court and a federal court, and was even praised in Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in Crawford.

Justice Stevens, who came of age professionally in Chicago, where voter fraud has been endemic for decades, held that requiring voters to show ID is justified by the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud and preserving public confidence in the election process. However, the critical editorials have repeated the same specious arguments made in both the Indiana and Georgia voter-ID cases — there are supposedly hundreds of thousands of voters who don’t have a photo ID (and can’t obtain one), and thus the turnout of voters (particularly minorities) will be diminished.

Unfortunately for the naysayers, the facts, as opposed to paranoid fantasies conjured up by lawyers and editorial writers, don’t support those claims. Both trial judges in the Indiana and Georgia cases rejected as incredible and utterly unreliable the claim that there were hundreds of thousands of voters without photo ID. In two years of litigation, lawyers were unable, as the Indiana judge noted, to introduce “evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote” as a result of the photo-ID law. In Georgia, the ACLU sent out a desperate e-mail asking their contacts to find an individual who could not vote because of the voter-ID requirement — but they could not find one. And none of the organizations like the NAACP that sued could produce a single member unable to vote. The Georgia court found that the failure to identify any such individuals was “particularly acute in light of Plaintiffs’ contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable Photo ID.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is bolstered by recent academic studies that show voter turnout (including that of minorities) is unaffected by voter-ID laws. A national study of voting behavior from 2000 to 2006 by scholars at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Delaware concluded that concern over such laws hurting the turnout of voters was “much ado about nothing.” The Heritage Foundation’s review of the 2004 election found that voter-ID laws do not reduce voter turnout, including of Hispanics and African Americans. A 2007 survey of 36,500 individuals by M.I.T. found overwhelming support for voter ID across ethnic and racial lines, and only 23 people out of the entire 36,500 person sample could not vote because of ID requirements. A study by John Lott found evidence that regulations preventing fraud “can actually increase the voter participation rate,” showing how ID requirements encourage public confidence in the voting process as noted by Justice Stevens.

Recent election results in Georgia and Indiana also show the fallacy of these criticisms. In her editorial, Cynthia Tucker completely ignored what actually happened in February when Georgia held its first presidential preference primary with the photo-ID law in effect. The state had a record turnout of over 2 million voters, almost one million more than in its 2004 primary before the ID requirement was in effect. Voters who did not have any ID were less than 0.01 percent. The number of black Georgians who voted more than doubled from the 2004 election and there were 100,000 more votes cast in the Democratic than the Republican primary.

Indiana’s turnout in its initial elections after the photo-ID law went into effect went up two percent overall. A study by the University of Missouri found no evidence that turnout of minority, poor, elderly, or less-educated populations was reduced, and in fact, the “only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.” When Indiana held its presidential primary on May 6, the turnout of Democratic voters quadrupled over 2004 and over 862,000 more votes were cast in the Democratic than the Republican primary. If this was some kind of plot by Republicans to hurt Democratic turnout as critics have alleged, it did not work very well.

Contrary to the beliefs of critics like the New York Times, impersonation fraud does exist. It is true that direct evidence of such fraud is hard to come by, but for a simple reason: Election officials cannot discover an impersonation if they are denied the very tool needed to detect it, an identification requirement. Justice Stevens, however, pointed out that “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.”

The New York Times should have checked its own archives for stories of a 1984 grand-jury report finding extensive impersonation fraud in Democratic primary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 and 1982 affecting races for the U.S. Congress and the New York State legislature. This successful 14-year conspiracy included not only the forgery of fictitious voter-registration cards, but also the recruitment of crews who cast multiple votes in person using those fictitious names as well as the names of deceased, moved, and newly registered voters. Thousands of fraudulent votes were cast in numerous elections, something that would not have happened with a photo-ID requirement.

Impersonation fraud is not just part of a bygone era. Last June, a man who tried to vote under the name of another registered voter in Hoboken, New Jersey admitted to the police after he was challenged by the local zoning board president that a group of homeless men had been paid $10 each to vote in the names of other voters. In 2007, the Department of Justice won a judgment in Noxubee, Mississippi, against a Tammany Hall-type political machine run by the local Democratic-party chief. One of the witnesses testified that he saw the party official telling an individual to go into a poll and use any name to vote because no one was going to question her identity — Mississippi has no ID requirement.

The critics also miss the fact that requiring government-issued photo ID’s safeguards against more than just impersonation fraud. During recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter-registration forms were submitted all over the country, and media investigations have found thousands of individuals registered in more than one state. Without ID requirements, bogus votes can be cast based on fictitious voter registrations or multiple registrations (or by illegal aliens). On the very day the Indiana lawsuit was argued before the Supreme Court, a newspaper discovered that an Indiana voter highlighted by the League of Women Voters was also registered to vote in Florida, where she owns a second home. She tried to use her Florida driver’s license to vote — clear evidence that the law worked to prevent double voting.

As the Supreme Court properly concluded, requiring voters to identify themselves insures the integrity of elections and guarantees public confidence. Every phony vote cast steals the vote of a legitimate voter, just as if that voter had been prevented from voting. The saddest truth of the opposition to photo ID by those critics who are supposedly concerned about the “disadvantaged” is that those who are most often taken advantage of and hurt by voter fraud are, in fact, poor, elderly, and minority voters.

The bottom line is this: the only people who would oppose voter ID laws are those who would cheat and commit voter fraud on one of our most precious rights. The ironic part here, as indicated above, is that although voter ID laws seem to bring out a much higher Democrat voter percentage, it is consistently the Democrats who fight against voter ID laws. If you can figure that one out, you're smarter than I am!

Regardless, voter ID laws are a very, very good thing, securing the right of each American citizen to one vote (and only one vote), and preventing the tainting of those votes by keeping out people who should not be voting at all. These recent rulings are extremely good news, and I hope many more follow them.

There's my two cents.

More Sowellisms

From NRO comes another handful of sage wisdom and observation from Thomas Sowell. Some of my favorites:

Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on Election Day.

Over the years, slowly but surely, we have painted ourselves into a corner on a whole range of issues, where we can no longer say or do what makes the most sense to us, but only what is considered to be politically correct.

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. The big catchword this election year is “change” — and it has already stopped many people’s thinking in its tracks.

It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political Left amount to.

Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually contradictory things.

At one time, to call someone “green” was to disparage them as inexperienced or immature. Today, to call someone green is to exalt them as one of the environmentalist saviors of the planet. But it is amazing how many people are green in both senses. Some people who think it is wrong to tell children to believe in Santa Claus nevertheless think it is all right to tell adults to believe that the government can give the whole population things that we cannot afford ourselves. Believing in Santa Claus is apparently bad for children but O.K. for adults.

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated.

Brilliant words from a brilliant mind!

There's my two cents.

Obama's Latest Gaffe (Yes, He Keeps 'Em Coming)

From Newsbusters:

Seeing dead people in the audience wasn't Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's only gaffe on Monday, for it has now been revealed that he also spoke about an uncle "who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps."

American troops didn't liberate Auschwitz; Soviet troops did.

Little Green Footballs has some more updates if you're interested.

Is this guy seriously the best presidential contender from the Democrat party? He has repeatedly demonstrated a startlingly complete ignorance of history over the past few weeks, and cannot seem to refrain from shooting his own foot off. McCain should be salivating to face this guy in the general election!

What's scary to me is just how many people are willing to overlook Obama's supreme unqualified-ness for the most difficult job in the world, and will still vote for him. What is America coming to??

There's my two cents.

Democrat Policies You Need To Know About

So, if Barack Obama wins the White House in November, what will he do? What issues will he pursue? Will he do anything that will really affect you? Take a look at some of these policies:

Energy

The "energy plan" announced by the Democrats offers one thing: a significant slowdown of our economy for at least twenty years.

The plan: We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

This is also the Democrat solution. Get it? The Democrat plan is the Democrat solution. In logic this is called petitio principii or "begging the question."

Ask yourself: which of the five components of the "plan" should happen first? "Reducing our dependence on foreign oil" is listed first. But it cannot happen first. In order to keep the economy moving ahead, some type of energy must replace foreign oil-and this energy must be tangible, readily available, and close to the market price of the energy it is replacing.

This is a crucial point and very few people seem to understand it. We cannot solve the energy crisis by talking about the creation of, say, hydrogen fuel cells for cars. We must have a fully functioning economy in the intervening thirty or forty years that it will take to "develop energy alternatives" like hydrogen fuel cells. In other words, the pressing question is not "What energy alternative will we be using in forty years?" The real question is: What energy alternative will we be using tomorrow that will allow us the economic prosperity to create future alternative energies much further down the road?

The Democrat plan also calls for "eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies." (I could not discover when and how the federal government has provided "billions in subsides for oil and gas companies." I assume that this really means raising taxes on oil and gas companies.) How is this strategy going to provide one gallon of fuel for Americans? It certainly has not worked in the past when price controls and higher taxes have always led to long lines at the gas pumps.

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. If we do not have a viable, recession free, economy in the short and medium term, then we will not get to a "cleaner, greener and stronger America" in the long run. We will not be able to sustain short-term economic growth that leads to long-term technological development without moderately priced energies being available throughout the process.

Obama's plan does absolutely nothing to increase energy production. Conservation is a fine thing, but in order for our economy to grow, we must increase energy while also conserving. The Democrat plan, as is normal, totally loses sight of that fact. Senator John Cornyn calls the Dem plan the 'tax, sue, and investigate' plan because they'll tax production, sue anyone who would actually have the gall to increase production of energy, and launch investigations to shut up anyone who might oppose their ideas. If the Dems get their way, they will do nothing to increase production or decrease prices; if anything, their actions will make things worse for you and me.

Social Security

Obama wants higher earners to pay more into the system -- to "protect" senior citizens "who have earned the right to retire with dignity."

Unlike Sen. John McCain, Obama said he believes that privatizing Social Security is a "bad idea," and "I won't stand for it as president."

Obama said he would adjust the cap on payroll taxes "so that people like me who make more than $102,000 have to pay a little bit more, and the people who are in need are protected." He said his plan would include an adjustment so the change doesn't hit middle-class Americans who make "just a little bit over $102,000."

The problem here is that Obama sees the government as the provider for everyone's retirement. You know, it wasn't all that long ago that people actually saved their money for their own retirement. It was a Democrat who first introduced the idea of Social Security, and thus ensnared generations of Americans into believing that the government would provide for them once they retired (it's a 'right', you know). Obama will refuse to allow any responsibility to be put on individuals, instead using the federal government to provide everything to everyone. Typical liberalism.

Taxation

As the presidential campaign heats up, a key issue is whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts, which expire in 2011. John McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let the rates rise.

Mr. Obama's claim that the lost revenue from the income-tax cuts exceeds the Social Security shortfall derives from an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Center's conclusions have been widely cited, but rely on dubious assumptions.

The basic methodology is simple: Compare the income-tax revenues if the tax cuts expire to revenues if the tax cuts are extended. The Center measures the difference in revenue 10 years from now – to match the government's 10-year budget measurement period – then extends the difference over 75 years to make it comparable to the 75-year Social Security shortfall.

To account for the effects of inflation and economic growth, analysts compare tax revenues to the size of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the tax cuts expire, income-tax receipts in 2018 will be 1.5% higher relative to gross domestic product than if the cuts are made permanent. By comparison, Social Security's 75-year shortfall is just 0.6% of GDP.

So Social Security is a costly problem, but the tax cuts cost much more. Open and shut case, right?

Not exactly. Tax revenues would skyrocket if the tax cuts expire, due to "bracket creep." Average incomes are higher today than in the 1990s, but income-tax brackets aren't adjusted for the growth of earnings. As a result, Americans will shift into higher tax brackets and pay a greater share of their incomes in taxes.

The key thing that Democrats always seem to overlook is the fact that every time taxes are increased, the economy slows down. Similarly, every time taxes are decreased, it roars. This is because of the simple reality that when Americans have less tax money taken out of their paychecks each month, they have more money to spend, which goes back into the economy. This is such a simple concept that a child can understand it...but our politicians are either incapable or unwilling to deal in reality when it comes to taxes.

Universal health care
Heavy-Handed Politics posts a story from an MD about why most doctors fear universal health care being implemented in America. The short version is that it would 'create one of the most intrusive government bureaucracies since the Internal Revenue Service, and it will impinge heavily on the individual freedoms of all American citizens.' It will not be cheaper, it will not be better quality, and the supposed mandate to require everyone to have coverage would be unenforceable. This same sort of plan is already in force in Massachusetts, where they have seen the following results:

[T]he least expensive health plan available through the program costs $196 a month, while the state fine for being uninsured is about half that cost -- $98 a month!

After just two years, Massachusetts' universal coverage program is running at a staggering $147 million deficit, and the four insurance carriers who provide the state- subsidized insurance are estimating that costs will go up by 14 percent next year.

Even more shocking is the manner in which Massachusetts state officials have decided to deal with the out-of-control costs of their broken system: they've ordered the insurance companies to cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for payments, and possibly increase how much patients will have to pay.

Basically, this doctor says that the Democrat plan for universal health care 'would look to solve our nation's health care problems by giving control of the system to the insurance companies.' If that's not a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is!

Fighting poverty
The one piece of significant legislation that Barack Obama has actually sponsored in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433), which would send almost $1 trillion of American taxpayer money to poor third-world countries. That's right, Obama is pushing a bill that would require Americans to pay exorbitant sums of money to fight poverty around the globe. The Center for Individual Freedom points out that this is equivalent to each American household paying an additional $8,500 each year in taxes...every penny of which goes out of the country into the pockets of third world dictators and thugs.

I sure hope I don't have to spell out the negatives on this bill for you. Call your Senators and tell them to oppose this legislation!

Bald-faced lies
Finally, we have a rather startling admission from one Democrat Congressman named Kanjorski:

That's right - the Democrats lied about stopping the war in Iraq simply because they were more interested in winning back power than in making promises they knew they could keep.

You'll get all of these things (and more) if the Democrats win big in November. You have been warned.

There's my two cents.

War Issues

Here are a couple stories that you need to know about regarding war in the Middle East.

IAEA: Iran's nuke program causes 'serious concerns'

Iran's alleged research into nuclear warheads remains a matter of serious concern and Tehran should provide more information on its missile-related activities, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also said, in its latest report on Iran, that Tehran was holding back information on high-explosives testing relating to its nuclear program.

Iran's research into "high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle project remained a matter of serious concern", said the report, which will be passed on to the United Nations Security Council.

"Substantive explanations are required from Iran to support its statements on the alleged studies and on other information with a possible military dimension."

If the IAEA -- an inept organization filled with the typical U.N. corruption -- has concerns about Iran's program, you can bet there are critically serious concerns about it. The problem is that the U.N. will negotiate, talk, and express concerns right up until the point where Iran nukes an American or Israeli city, then be shocked that Iran was capable of nuclear weapons.

What would meeting with Iran do?

Barack Obama has enshrined the principle of unconditional summitry with Iran as one of the central foreign policy planks of his campaign for President. This despite recent efforts by Obama surrogates to confuse the electorate.

What would be the consequences of such a Presidential meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad?

Michael Gerson has written eloquently about the moral stain that will color the mere act of meeting with a Holocaust denier who boasts of his yearning to repeat the effort to exterminate the Jews. Obama, a man who on the campaign trail has declared that "nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have," will be extending the honor of a Presidential meeting to the most dangerous anti-Semite of all.

For what benefit? As Gerson wrote,

"having made Iranian talks without precondition: his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice to move forward"

There will inevitably be pressure to offer concessions to Ahmadinejad to help ensure a successful summit. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who will bear the burden? Who will pay the price?

Ahmadinejad has been crystal clear about his goals. He is fanatic towards Jews and toward Israel -- a type of obsession the world has witnessed before. Israel will certainly be on the agenda of any presidential meeting.* Obama would meet and perhaps even shake hands with a man who has repeatedly condemned Israel, has called it "filthy bacteria" and will hear the ritual denunciations of Israel.

When a summit meeting occurs, there is considerable pressure to "accomplish" something, to come to an agreement. What exactly would a President Obama be willing to give to Iran in order to get back something that could be touted as an achievement of his summitry?

The boost a summit (even one that led to no agreements) would give to the image of Ahmadinejad would embolden him within Iran (he faces internal pressures that directly blame him for Iran's diplomatic problems) and without. Furthermore, reformers throughout the region will be demoralized and our relations with Sunni nations,including Saudi Arabia, will be damaged as these Sunni regimes also seek to accommodate Iran.

More significant will be the impact on the one group in the region that has warm feelings toward America: the Iranian people themselves. There is a huge Baby Boom generation that is restive and angry towards the regime. As a consequence of pro-natalist policies formulated in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War, there was a surge in births in Iran. Two-thirds of Iranians are now estimated to be under the age of 30; and, significantly, only 40 percent of them are ethnically Persian. They resent the regime.

Iranians are also heirs to a culture that was historically very cosmopolitan and proud of its sophistication and openness to the outside world. Already many Iranians complain of Ahmadinejad's policies that have led to global isolation In a poll taken by the regime itself, one half (and this is probably understated because the regime was running the poll) affirmed that Washington's attitude towards Iran are "to some extent" correct. As much as they abhor the regime, they also have the most positive feelings towards America of any population in the region.

There is an old Middle Eastern aphorism: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Obama meets with Ahmadinejad, it will be a sign to Iranians that the world is willing to accept and to respect their regime. The reservoir of goodwill -- the hope for the future as this bulge of youth moves forward -- will be drained. They will feel the sting of defeat -- a betrayal they can lay at the feet of President Obama and America.

[T]he world's powers until now have diplomatically isolated the regime. Other world leaders have refrained from meeting with a leader who has continually issued a string of odious statements such as "Israel will be wiped off the map" and "Israel is a stinking corpse" and who denies the Holocaust.

A meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad would trigger a parade of other foreign leaders to Tehran. They are merely waiting for a pretext, an excuse, that would absolve them from the shame of meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our strongest allies in Europe, Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Gordon Brown in England, face internal pressures to engage in Iran from commercial interests and political and diplomatic figures within their nations. Until now they have courageously resisted this pressure.

When other high profile political leaders will come a calling, they may not bear the bowler of Neville Chamberlain, but they will bring hats in hand, newly ready and able to strengthen diplomatic (and hence all) ties to the mullahcracy. Under the cover of diplomatic outreach, sanction-busting deals will naturally follow. European nations are eager for energy deals that will provide the wherewithal for Iran to step up its nuclear weapons program.

While it may sound perfectly reasonable for Obama to say that he'd meet with Ahmadinejad, this statement is the absolute height of folly when it comes to foreign policy. In exchange for gaining absolutely nothing, such a meeting would open the floodgates of support, trade, and international advocacy to a nation that sponsors terrorism against us and our allies. In other words, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Global terrorism down!
You won't hear this in the MSM because one of their last remaining arguments against the war in Iraq is that it has not made us any safer from terrorism. However, according to a recently released study, fatalities from global terrorism are down by 40%.

Now that you know these critical stories, you can pass them along to others, especially people who still subscribe to the lies and deceits of the anti-war nitwits in the MSM and the Left.

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

Here is today's link roundup...

On the home front:

• The U.S. can't pass English 101.
  
• Virginia court upholds partial birth abortion.
  
• Why does Jimmy Carter hate America?
  
• Oprah's taking a ratings hit.
  
• Crypto-Marxism making a comeback.
  
• Being a 'bad' American...and loving it.
  

War on terror:

• What happens when we win?
  
• Attack on Iran? It's now or never.
  
• IAEA: Iran's nuclear program causes "serious concern".
  

Election news:

• Obama's empty words about supporting Israel.
  
• Obama would be Jimmy Carter's second term.
  
• Clinton's latest questionable statements on the campaign trail.
  
• Obama gives lame speech on Memorial Day.
• The lies of Barack Obama.
  

Around the world:

• Lessons from Colombia.
  
• Islamic polygamy in Canada.
  
• Colombian FARC leader dead.
  
• Bush's historic Knesset speech.
  

Enjoy!

It's Their Own Damn Fault!

Victor Davis Hanson writes a great -- if obvious, to those of us outside Washington -- piece about how the problems with the Republican party right now are the fault of no one but Republicans:

There is a lot of anguish among Republicans as they look at the dismal polls and the even more depressing performance of their candidates in various preliminary House races. New books and prophets forecast an end to conservatism, and a need to formulate a new sort of muscular liberalism to meet new challenges. Expect more such nostrums if Barack Obama wins in the fall.

What mystifies is the paralysis of Republicans and their impotent protestations that “Bush did it”. The truth is that Congressional Republicans, responsible for turning principles into governance, deserve to lose—unless they craft clear positions that won’t be compromised and then offer them as alternative choices to the voters this fall. Here are some examples:

Spending: a balanced budget, no exceptions. Voters are tired of hearing that this or that projection assures a balanced budget in 2, 3, or 5 years. Revenues continue to soar after the tax cuts, so the problem is too much going out, not too little coming in. Surpluses are preferable to deficits, since we want to retire, not add to out foreign debt. Just say no—or better yet “Please pay for it” — the next time a new entitlement is introduced.

The War: Afghanistan and Iraq have radically improved. Anti-war hype and slurs are a year out of date. We are finally on the edge of having done the impossible: removed the most odious regimes in the Middle East and fostered constitutional governments in their places. Spending on general defense and the war still run at only 4% of GDP, not high by historical levels. The reforming Petraeus army is stronger and wiser, despite the toll of war, for our ordeals in the Middle East. As troops slowly begin to come home next year, let everyone take credit for it.

Energy: Drill, explore, conserve. The answer does not lie in any one area, but in the willingness to produce more energy in all of them. We must ensure more oil, coal, and nuclear power, conserve more energy as we produce more—to prevent going broke while we transition to next-generation fuels.

Why should others abroad, who are far less careful, extract oil for us in areas of the world more fragile than our own? We must end the notion that ANWR only yields a million barrels a day, or the coasts only 2 million, or tar sands or shale only a million, or nuclear power and coal only so many megawatts of power. To paraphrase, Sen. Dirksen—‘a million barrels a day here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real production.’

Economy: We are in a natural down cycle, not the Great Depression—interest rates, unemployment, economic growth, and stock prices do not reflect a recession. Use this downturn as a warning not to spend what we don’t have when things rebound.

Immigration: Close the border, and then, and only then, argue over what’s next. Stop illegal entries, while we promote assimilation, the English language, integration, and education in American civics. Do that and most of our seemingly insurmountable problems will shrink as we endlessly bicker over amnesty, guest workers, and legal quotas.

Trade: free and supervised trade creates more jobs, makes us more competitive, and fosters alliances. Protectionism does the opposite. Americans like to compete and usually win—when they know the rules of the contest are fair and clearly explained to them.

Foreign Policy: Neither provoke nor talk to our enemies in the Middle East, Asia, or South America. Instead, cultivate our allies, build our defenses—and be ready for anything.

Homeland Security: the framework is in place. Let the Democrats try to repeal it. Let them make the argument that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo haven’t made us safer.

Ethics: Warn Republicans that in matters of sex, influence peddling, and graft, the Party of family values suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy. So the tolerance level for these sins is zero.

If Republicans could adopt such a simple message, stick to it, and find the most articulate spokespeople, they could still win.

The Alternative

Why? Because for all the charisma, Barack Obama advocates antitheses that most in most years would not otherwise choose—higher taxes, more government spending; pie-in-the-sky promises of wind and solar while gas hits $5 a gallon; more government intrusion into the economy that leaves us with more obstacles after the economy improves on its own; more illegal aliens as we talk in lofty terms of “comprehensive immigration reform,” a de facto euphemism for open borders; a protectionism that only antagonizes friends, drives prices higher, and insulates us from reality; and a multilateralist foreign policy, patterned after UN leadership, in which we deny rather than confront challenges.

In short, the Republicans’ problem? They forgot who they were and can’t explain what they might be. They need to go back to basics, adopt conservative principles to confront new challenges, and then find the most effective spokesmen they can to explain their positions—hourly.

For some inexplicable reason, Republican politicians seem to be almost completely incapable of understanding this basic reality. This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about being a conservative right now - the answer is huge, bold, blinking, neon, and obvious. And yet, our elected representatives are so totally clueless that they're fumbling about in the darkness, wondering why the party is looking at a landslide defeat in November and taking in very little donation money.

Hanson isn't alone, however. The same sentiments have been echoed by just about everyone else in the conservative media sphere. A good article that addresses specifics is here. There are a few in Congress who get it. Senator Jim DeMint is one of the leaders of a youth movement of sorts that hasn't yet been tainted by Washington big government politics. He gets it, too. But it takes more than just a few. It takes a majority, and that means voters have to be involved. Until the voting base of the Republican party decides to get rid of the establishment idiots and put in people like DeMint who will actually govern on conservative principles, nothing will change.

There's my two cents.