Imagine that?
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Friday, October 28, 2005
Held Hostage At Home
Go Gators…
As I’ve mentioned many times before, we live on a small island located on the Georgia coast. Eight months out of the year the weather is glorious—shorts and flip flops being the normal dress code. Two months in the middle of summer are ridiculously hot, and two months in the winter are what people from Wisconsin would call “cool”, but by and large we are blessed in the weather department.
One of the first things you learn when you move to a resort location like St. Simons Island is the necessity to avoid the tourist crowds in order to preserve your island induced mental sanity. One day your driving around in your shorts and flip flops minding your own business in normal light traffic, and the next day your caught up in the ‘traffic jam from hell” and find yourself losing your mind and screaming your head off in a fit of Atlanta-style road rage.
Identifying the periods of high tourism is fairly easy—Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day, and most weekends in the summer months. That still leaves plenty of time for us to enjoy the amenities of our island without standing in lines or otherwise participating in the vacations of a bunch of uncouth people that “just don’t get out much.”
Unfortunately, this weekend is one of “those” weekends—perhaps THE WORST WEEKEND of all. This weekend we will be inundated with revelers who are either attending or celebrating the GEORGIA-FLORIDA football game that will be played this Saturday in Alltel Stadium just down the road in Jacksonville.
God help us all.
They call it “The World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.”
I say that description, impossible as it seems, is an understatement.
The words “Cocktail Party” implies a civil, mature social gathering, but that is not an accurate description of the behavior attributed to our weekend guests (they started arriving here on Wednesday.)
More accurately, the revelry surrounding the Georgia-Florida game is more like a fraternity toga party for otherwise well behaved adults. (Think of the scenes in the movie “Animal House.”)
I think that living on St. Simons on a Georgia-Florida weekend, for a Georgia Tech man, would be similar to the emotions experienced by a Baptist preacher invited to eat dinner in a whorehouse. I’m a Georgia Tech man and I’m not talking preachers like Jimmy Swaggart here in my comparison either.
These people are crazy.
Every single one of them shows up in town with a pocket full of money and an attitude. They hit the grocery store, the liquor store, and then proceed to hoot and holler and bark “Go you hairy Dogs” and stagger and stumble and drool and pick fights and generally make a nuscience and public menace of themselves.
That describes the men—the women are even WORSE.
Really, unless you are a card carrying member of this sociopathic crowd and share their fanatical football allegiances, on Georgia-Florida weekend you learn to AVOID public places like bars, restaurants, and public roadways in order to protect your physical health and mental sanity.
My girl Pat experienced her first Georgia-Florida weekend last year and I spent most of Friday night trying to keep her from instigating a fight that I would be expected to finish for her. Funny thing, Pat gets more than a little annoyed sitting at a bar when the same woman leans on her and bumps into her and elbows her obliviously for the sixtieth time in fifteen minutes. Of course a woman that is so drunk that she can’t feel her own feet can’t be expected to react to an angry woman tapping her on the shoulder saying “excuse me—could you stop leaning on my boyfriend?”
I’ve made plans to avoid those kinds of situations in the future. Instead of GOING with the flow, I intend to AVOID the flow entirely.
Pat and I conducted our normal weekend ritual last night, having a few drinks down at our favorite bar—Marsh Point—and dining at our favorite restaurant—Blackwater Grill. Having already done our grocery shopping for the weekend, we will barricade ourselves into our condo today and not emerge again until Sunday night when we’ll spend a few minutes picking up empty beer bottles and discarded fast food packaging left in our parking lot by the swarming herds of drunken morons.
I wish I could E-mail some candid pictures of all of our guests to their employers on Monday morning.
A few folks might be looking for work as a result.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, we live on a small island located on the Georgia coast. Eight months out of the year the weather is glorious—shorts and flip flops being the normal dress code. Two months in the middle of summer are ridiculously hot, and two months in the winter are what people from Wisconsin would call “cool”, but by and large we are blessed in the weather department.
One of the first things you learn when you move to a resort location like St. Simons Island is the necessity to avoid the tourist crowds in order to preserve your island induced mental sanity. One day your driving around in your shorts and flip flops minding your own business in normal light traffic, and the next day your caught up in the ‘traffic jam from hell” and find yourself losing your mind and screaming your head off in a fit of Atlanta-style road rage.
Identifying the periods of high tourism is fairly easy—Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day, and most weekends in the summer months. That still leaves plenty of time for us to enjoy the amenities of our island without standing in lines or otherwise participating in the vacations of a bunch of uncouth people that “just don’t get out much.”
Unfortunately, this weekend is one of “those” weekends—perhaps THE WORST WEEKEND of all. This weekend we will be inundated with revelers who are either attending or celebrating the GEORGIA-FLORIDA football game that will be played this Saturday in Alltel Stadium just down the road in Jacksonville.
God help us all.
They call it “The World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.”
I say that description, impossible as it seems, is an understatement.
The words “Cocktail Party” implies a civil, mature social gathering, but that is not an accurate description of the behavior attributed to our weekend guests (they started arriving here on Wednesday.)
More accurately, the revelry surrounding the Georgia-Florida game is more like a fraternity toga party for otherwise well behaved adults. (Think of the scenes in the movie “Animal House.”)
I think that living on St. Simons on a Georgia-Florida weekend, for a Georgia Tech man, would be similar to the emotions experienced by a Baptist preacher invited to eat dinner in a whorehouse. I’m a Georgia Tech man and I’m not talking preachers like Jimmy Swaggart here in my comparison either.
These people are crazy.
Every single one of them shows up in town with a pocket full of money and an attitude. They hit the grocery store, the liquor store, and then proceed to hoot and holler and bark “Go you hairy Dogs” and stagger and stumble and drool and pick fights and generally make a nuscience and public menace of themselves.
That describes the men—the women are even WORSE.
Really, unless you are a card carrying member of this sociopathic crowd and share their fanatical football allegiances, on Georgia-Florida weekend you learn to AVOID public places like bars, restaurants, and public roadways in order to protect your physical health and mental sanity.
My girl Pat experienced her first Georgia-Florida weekend last year and I spent most of Friday night trying to keep her from instigating a fight that I would be expected to finish for her. Funny thing, Pat gets more than a little annoyed sitting at a bar when the same woman leans on her and bumps into her and elbows her obliviously for the sixtieth time in fifteen minutes. Of course a woman that is so drunk that she can’t feel her own feet can’t be expected to react to an angry woman tapping her on the shoulder saying “excuse me—could you stop leaning on my boyfriend?”
I’ve made plans to avoid those kinds of situations in the future. Instead of GOING with the flow, I intend to AVOID the flow entirely.
Pat and I conducted our normal weekend ritual last night, having a few drinks down at our favorite bar—Marsh Point—and dining at our favorite restaurant—Blackwater Grill. Having already done our grocery shopping for the weekend, we will barricade ourselves into our condo today and not emerge again until Sunday night when we’ll spend a few minutes picking up empty beer bottles and discarded fast food packaging left in our parking lot by the swarming herds of drunken morons.
I wish I could E-mail some candid pictures of all of our guests to their employers on Monday morning.
A few folks might be looking for work as a result.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Meyers Withdraws
I’ve kept my mouth shut and my keyboard off of this subject because I wanted to wait for the process to play out in its entirety.
I honestly thought that President Bush could have nominated a more proven conservative with a strict constitutional background like Janice Rogers Brown, but since I wasn’t elected president I was willing to let the Senate advise and consent and the chips fall where they may.
I don’t blame her for pulling her appointment because I think that she knew that she wasn’t the best-qualified candidate and she doubted her ability to weather the Senate confirmation process.
Let’s hope that President Bush’s next appointment is better received by conservatives and the Republican Party. I hope it’s Brown so I watch Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy’s eyeballs roll back in their heads and steam blow from their ears.
I also think that the Senate leadership should put a large dirty boot on the asses of the Republican members of “the gang of fourteen” that cut the deal against changing the Senate rules to eliminate the use of a committee filibuster to prevent an up or down vote.
All of the Senate Democrats need to be reminded of one thing…
THEY LOST THE ELECTON…ACTUALLY THREE ELECTIONS.
I honestly thought that President Bush could have nominated a more proven conservative with a strict constitutional background like Janice Rogers Brown, but since I wasn’t elected president I was willing to let the Senate advise and consent and the chips fall where they may.
I don’t blame her for pulling her appointment because I think that she knew that she wasn’t the best-qualified candidate and she doubted her ability to weather the Senate confirmation process.
Let’s hope that President Bush’s next appointment is better received by conservatives and the Republican Party. I hope it’s Brown so I watch Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy’s eyeballs roll back in their heads and steam blow from their ears.
I also think that the Senate leadership should put a large dirty boot on the asses of the Republican members of “the gang of fourteen” that cut the deal against changing the Senate rules to eliminate the use of a committee filibuster to prevent an up or down vote.
All of the Senate Democrats need to be reminded of one thing…
THEY LOST THE ELECTON…ACTUALLY THREE ELECTIONS.
Stupid Hurricane Victims
I’m Sorry, But Somebody Has Got To Say It...
What has gone wrong with the American people? Is there some new mind altering chemical in the water supplies. Have UFO’s come down from outer space at night and performed mass lobotomies?
What I’m talking about here is the apparently new expectations by citizens that the government, specifically FEMA, is responsible for their comfort and well being the minute the last winds of a hurricane stops blowing in their area.
What ever happened to listening to authorities and actually EVACUATING the area threatened by a storm…particularly if you have small children? They had four or five days notice on Hurricane Wilma, didn’t they?
And what ever happened to people stockpiling supplies like water, food, gasoline, and ice BEFORE the storm hits so that you can survive the 48 to 72 hours it will take local authorities and FEMA to get to your stupid ass when you didn’t evacuate in the first place?
Take a look at this news story about all of the whiners down if south Florida that are the victims of hurricane Wilma.
MIAMI-With many Floridians still struggling to find food, water, ice, and gas in the wake of Hurricane Wilma, Gov. Jeb Bush took responsibility for frustrating relief delays in a state all to familiar with powerful storms.
“We did not perform to where we want to be,” the governor said at a news conference Wednesday in Tallahassee, adding that criticism of the federal response was misdirected. “This is our responsibility.”
I beg to differ with the pious governor. I say that the first 72 hours are your responsibility unless you have a tree limb stuck in your head or you leg was cut off by flying sheet metal. Of course in that event YOU are responsible for sustaining the injuries (you didn't evacuate), but you should be able to expect assistance from the emergency personnel--IF they are not overwhelmed with people dieing of thirst and getting in fights in gasoline lines.
Bush’s comments came amid finger-pointing by local and county officials upset with aid efforts, and criticism of the Federal Emergency Management Agency reminiscent of the anger unleashed following Hurricane Katrina.
“This is like the Third World,” said Claudia Shaw, who spent several hours in a gas line. “We live in a state where we suffer from these storms every year. Where is the planning?”
That’s right, Miss Shaw, where was YOUR PLANNING for hurricane Wilma?
The storm hit on Monday, and Miss Shaw is complaining on Wednesday—only TWO DAYS later.
Miss Shaw evidently made no preparations to ensure her own comfort and survival.
And another question for Claudia: “where the heck could she possibly be driving to need to buy gas for her car?” If she has a generator, why didn’t she have twenty or so gallons stockpiled at her home BEFORE THE STORM, because when the power is interrupted, gas stations CAN'T PUMP GAS?
Imagine that...
Of course the media loves to find dumb ass people like Claudia Shaw so they can write stories bashing FEMA and Republican governor Bush.
Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez called the relief distribution system “flawed” and said at least one of 11 sites in his county ran out of supplies.
But at another South Florida distribution site, ice sat melting Wednesday night, with officials issuing a plea on television stations: Come get it before it goes to waste.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who oversees FEMA, asked victims to have patience as he surveyed crumpled boats, shattered mobile homes and snaking lines of cars at fuel stations along the storm’s path…
In Florida, more than 4,000 people remained housed in 43 shelters spread over 13 counties.
Who ARE these people, and why the heck are they living in Florida in the first place?
In this case I think that the "authorities" should stop apologizing and start kicking a few peoples butts for being STUPID.
After all, 100 years ago these same people wouldn't be on the news complaining, they'd be DEAD.
What has gone wrong with the American people? Is there some new mind altering chemical in the water supplies. Have UFO’s come down from outer space at night and performed mass lobotomies?
What I’m talking about here is the apparently new expectations by citizens that the government, specifically FEMA, is responsible for their comfort and well being the minute the last winds of a hurricane stops blowing in their area.
What ever happened to listening to authorities and actually EVACUATING the area threatened by a storm…particularly if you have small children? They had four or five days notice on Hurricane Wilma, didn’t they?
And what ever happened to people stockpiling supplies like water, food, gasoline, and ice BEFORE the storm hits so that you can survive the 48 to 72 hours it will take local authorities and FEMA to get to your stupid ass when you didn’t evacuate in the first place?
Take a look at this news story about all of the whiners down if south Florida that are the victims of hurricane Wilma.
MIAMI-With many Floridians still struggling to find food, water, ice, and gas in the wake of Hurricane Wilma, Gov. Jeb Bush took responsibility for frustrating relief delays in a state all to familiar with powerful storms.
“We did not perform to where we want to be,” the governor said at a news conference Wednesday in Tallahassee, adding that criticism of the federal response was misdirected. “This is our responsibility.”
I beg to differ with the pious governor. I say that the first 72 hours are your responsibility unless you have a tree limb stuck in your head or you leg was cut off by flying sheet metal. Of course in that event YOU are responsible for sustaining the injuries (you didn't evacuate), but you should be able to expect assistance from the emergency personnel--IF they are not overwhelmed with people dieing of thirst and getting in fights in gasoline lines.
Bush’s comments came amid finger-pointing by local and county officials upset with aid efforts, and criticism of the Federal Emergency Management Agency reminiscent of the anger unleashed following Hurricane Katrina.
“This is like the Third World,” said Claudia Shaw, who spent several hours in a gas line. “We live in a state where we suffer from these storms every year. Where is the planning?”
That’s right, Miss Shaw, where was YOUR PLANNING for hurricane Wilma?
The storm hit on Monday, and Miss Shaw is complaining on Wednesday—only TWO DAYS later.
Miss Shaw evidently made no preparations to ensure her own comfort and survival.
And another question for Claudia: “where the heck could she possibly be driving to need to buy gas for her car?” If she has a generator, why didn’t she have twenty or so gallons stockpiled at her home BEFORE THE STORM, because when the power is interrupted, gas stations CAN'T PUMP GAS?
Imagine that...
Of course the media loves to find dumb ass people like Claudia Shaw so they can write stories bashing FEMA and Republican governor Bush.
Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez called the relief distribution system “flawed” and said at least one of 11 sites in his county ran out of supplies.
But at another South Florida distribution site, ice sat melting Wednesday night, with officials issuing a plea on television stations: Come get it before it goes to waste.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who oversees FEMA, asked victims to have patience as he surveyed crumpled boats, shattered mobile homes and snaking lines of cars at fuel stations along the storm’s path…
In Florida, more than 4,000 people remained housed in 43 shelters spread over 13 counties.
Who ARE these people, and why the heck are they living in Florida in the first place?
In this case I think that the "authorities" should stop apologizing and start kicking a few peoples butts for being STUPID.
After all, 100 years ago these same people wouldn't be on the news complaining, they'd be DEAD.
CBS Still Bleeding
…And It’s Going To Take More Than A Band Aid…
The trickle of personnel flowing out the door at CBS’s offices in NY City made a big splash yesterday with the announcement of the departure of Dan Rather’s boss, CBS News president Andrew Hayward.
The chairman of CBS, Leslie Moonves, announced today that he was replacing the longtime president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward, with the longtime president of the network's sports division, Sean McManus.
In a conscious nod to Roone Arledge, who oversaw both the news and sports divisions at ABC for more than a decade, Mr. McManus, 50, will similarly serve in both capacities at CBS. But Mr. McManus will face challenges that simply did not exist in Mr. Arledge's time, as CBS - and other television news divisions, to say nothing of newspapers - struggle to find new ways to captivate viewers who are increasingly defecting to newer outlets like Fox News and Yahoo, and increasingly skeptical of journalists as a whole.
Take my word for it--this is a good thing.
Heyward deserved to be fired this time a year ago after the airing of the false CBS 60 Minutes story about President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service.
Buried down in the fifth paragraph is the NY Times mention of Heyward’s involvement in the failure to verify the documents supporting the TANG story.
Last fall, the news division was upended by the fallout from a report, first broadcast on the weeknight edition of "60 Minutes," that purported to present new details about the Vietnam-era National Guard service of President Bush but was later discredited after the network acknowledged it could not vouch for the documents on which it was based.
Mr. Heyward - who, at least initially, fiercely defended the report and the documents, despite fundamental questions raised immediately about their authenticity - managed to hold on to his job in the months afterward. But few others involved in the production of the report did. Dan Rather, the correspondent on the report and the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter century, stepped down as anchor in the spring, a year earlier than he had planned.
Meanwhile, after an outside panel concluded that the disputed report had been rushed onto the air under competitive pressure and never should have been broadcast, Mr. Moonves fired the segment producer, Mary Mapes, and demanded the resignations of three other top journalists, including Betsy West, a senior vice president, who was one of Mr. Heyward's chief deputies.
Of course CBS has managed to blunt the public relations impact of airing a false story about a presidential candidate a month before an election by allowing the guilty parties to trickle out the door one by one. By avoiding a single mass firing, CBS and the media can still claim that the story about Bush shirking his Viet Nam National Guard service was really true and that they just couldn’t prove it. Rather's and Heyward's departure is represented as coincidental--not punative.
Would YOU have even known about this final chapter in CBS's pennance if I hadn't pointed it out to you? Most people have forgotten about Heyward's involvment in the story by now.
So let’s summarize the casualties to date:
Dan Rather-swears he believes the story was true. Enjoying early retirement.
Mary Mapes-swears she believes the story was true. Writing a book about her adventure.
Betsy West-swears she believes the story was true. Trying to figure out what hit her.
Josh Howard-swears he believes the story was true. Trying to score with Mapes
Mary Murphy-swears she believes the story was true. Celebrating Heyward’s firing.
Andrew Heyward-buying a gun and looking for Dan Rather and Mary Mapes
I’d say that CBS has finally settled the score on this issue. Let’s just hope that they learned their lesson.
Probably not…
The trickle of personnel flowing out the door at CBS’s offices in NY City made a big splash yesterday with the announcement of the departure of Dan Rather’s boss, CBS News president Andrew Hayward.
The chairman of CBS, Leslie Moonves, announced today that he was replacing the longtime president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward, with the longtime president of the network's sports division, Sean McManus.
In a conscious nod to Roone Arledge, who oversaw both the news and sports divisions at ABC for more than a decade, Mr. McManus, 50, will similarly serve in both capacities at CBS. But Mr. McManus will face challenges that simply did not exist in Mr. Arledge's time, as CBS - and other television news divisions, to say nothing of newspapers - struggle to find new ways to captivate viewers who are increasingly defecting to newer outlets like Fox News and Yahoo, and increasingly skeptical of journalists as a whole.
Take my word for it--this is a good thing.
Heyward deserved to be fired this time a year ago after the airing of the false CBS 60 Minutes story about President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service.
Buried down in the fifth paragraph is the NY Times mention of Heyward’s involvement in the failure to verify the documents supporting the TANG story.
Last fall, the news division was upended by the fallout from a report, first broadcast on the weeknight edition of "60 Minutes," that purported to present new details about the Vietnam-era National Guard service of President Bush but was later discredited after the network acknowledged it could not vouch for the documents on which it was based.
Mr. Heyward - who, at least initially, fiercely defended the report and the documents, despite fundamental questions raised immediately about their authenticity - managed to hold on to his job in the months afterward. But few others involved in the production of the report did. Dan Rather, the correspondent on the report and the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter century, stepped down as anchor in the spring, a year earlier than he had planned.
Meanwhile, after an outside panel concluded that the disputed report had been rushed onto the air under competitive pressure and never should have been broadcast, Mr. Moonves fired the segment producer, Mary Mapes, and demanded the resignations of three other top journalists, including Betsy West, a senior vice president, who was one of Mr. Heyward's chief deputies.
Of course CBS has managed to blunt the public relations impact of airing a false story about a presidential candidate a month before an election by allowing the guilty parties to trickle out the door one by one. By avoiding a single mass firing, CBS and the media can still claim that the story about Bush shirking his Viet Nam National Guard service was really true and that they just couldn’t prove it. Rather's and Heyward's departure is represented as coincidental--not punative.
Would YOU have even known about this final chapter in CBS's pennance if I hadn't pointed it out to you? Most people have forgotten about Heyward's involvment in the story by now.
So let’s summarize the casualties to date:
Dan Rather-swears he believes the story was true. Enjoying early retirement.
Mary Mapes-swears she believes the story was true. Writing a book about her adventure.
Betsy West-swears she believes the story was true. Trying to figure out what hit her.
Josh Howard-swears he believes the story was true. Trying to score with Mapes
Mary Murphy-swears she believes the story was true. Celebrating Heyward’s firing.
Andrew Heyward-buying a gun and looking for Dan Rather and Mary Mapes
I’d say that CBS has finally settled the score on this issue. Let’s just hope that they learned their lesson.
Probably not…
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Bush Lied--People Died
More Bed Wetting, Booger Eating Liberal Drivel ?
As everyone is constantly reminded practically every day, we have as yet been unable to find boatloads of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in Iraq. Where they are or more likely, where they were shipped (Syria or Iran) prior to the beginning of the war in March 2003 has yet to be determined.
We do know that at the start of the war that Iraq still possessed 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium and "dual use" equipment that could have been put into service to refine the yellowcake into weapons grade uranium. For some moronic reason the IAEA had allowed Iraq to keep the materials and equipement "secured" in the country rather than forcing them to destroy it or have it moved to the US or some other secure country.
We also have found a few chemical and biological weapons along with trace residues of their manufacture since the 1991 gulf war--a clear violation of the UN sanctions. The major stockpiles apparently disappeared in the run-up to the war in early 2003.
Still, the lack of the discovery of zillions of weapons have had an unusual effect here amoung Democrats and their media pets. While everyone is screaming "Bush Lied--People Died" and "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" they are conveniently forgetting the statements of prominent Democrats echoing the EXACT SAME CLAIMS made by President Bush before we went to war.
Here are a few examples for your review:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
(Notice that Kerry made this statement AFTER President Bush's State of the Union Address and within six weeks of the US invasion of Iraq)
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
Why doesn't the LA Times and NY Times and every other newspaper take the trouble to remind these people of their previous comments when they step to a microphone or in front of a TV camera today?
Why aren't they remined that they were saying the exact same things before the war as the President was saying?
How can they have such convenient memories?
I know why. It's because they are Democrats, and they and the media assume that much of the American public is too STUPID to read and hear anything but what they tell us today.
I'm not that stupid, how about you?
As everyone is constantly reminded practically every day, we have as yet been unable to find boatloads of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in Iraq. Where they are or more likely, where they were shipped (Syria or Iran) prior to the beginning of the war in March 2003 has yet to be determined.
We do know that at the start of the war that Iraq still possessed 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium and "dual use" equipment that could have been put into service to refine the yellowcake into weapons grade uranium. For some moronic reason the IAEA had allowed Iraq to keep the materials and equipement "secured" in the country rather than forcing them to destroy it or have it moved to the US or some other secure country.
We also have found a few chemical and biological weapons along with trace residues of their manufacture since the 1991 gulf war--a clear violation of the UN sanctions. The major stockpiles apparently disappeared in the run-up to the war in early 2003.
Still, the lack of the discovery of zillions of weapons have had an unusual effect here amoung Democrats and their media pets. While everyone is screaming "Bush Lied--People Died" and "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" they are conveniently forgetting the statements of prominent Democrats echoing the EXACT SAME CLAIMS made by President Bush before we went to war.
Here are a few examples for your review:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
(Notice that Kerry made this statement AFTER President Bush's State of the Union Address and within six weeks of the US invasion of Iraq)
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
Why doesn't the LA Times and NY Times and every other newspaper take the trouble to remind these people of their previous comments when they step to a microphone or in front of a TV camera today?
Why aren't they remined that they were saying the exact same things before the war as the President was saying?
How can they have such convenient memories?
I know why. It's because they are Democrats, and they and the media assume that much of the American public is too STUPID to read and hear anything but what they tell us today.
I'm not that stupid, how about you?
It happened
I Hope They're Happy...
"US Military Deaths Reach 2000 In Iraq" trumpets the Associated Press headline. It also took them only two paragraphs to work in another popular anti war theme:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The American military death toll in the Iraq war reached 2,000 Tuesday with the announcements of three more deaths, including an Army sergeant who died of wounds at a military hospital in Texas and two Marines killed last week in fighting west of Baghdad.
The 2,000 mark was reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the Iraq conflict, launched in March 2003 to destroy Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. None was ever found.
"None were ever found" is wrong.
"None were ever found" is an outright lie.
"Few were ever found" would be accurate.
"The majority have as yet not been located" would be accurate.
"Where and to whom they were shipped to has yet to be identified" would be accurate.
I don't know why I bother, since we all know that accuracy is not the goal of the Associated Press.
It never is.
"US Military Deaths Reach 2000 In Iraq" trumpets the Associated Press headline. It also took them only two paragraphs to work in another popular anti war theme:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The American military death toll in the Iraq war reached 2,000 Tuesday with the announcements of three more deaths, including an Army sergeant who died of wounds at a military hospital in Texas and two Marines killed last week in fighting west of Baghdad.
The 2,000 mark was reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the Iraq conflict, launched in March 2003 to destroy Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. None was ever found.
"None were ever found" is wrong.
"None were ever found" is an outright lie.
"Few were ever found" would be accurate.
"The majority have as yet not been located" would be accurate.
"Where and to whom they were shipped to has yet to be identified" would be accurate.
I don't know why I bother, since we all know that accuracy is not the goal of the Associated Press.
It never is.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Weather Related Illness
Depression has set in. Oh, the agony.
I had to turn on the heat in our condo for the first time this fall, and I just checked the National Weather Service Site and it's 43 degrees outside.
Oh well, we made it to October 25th without temperatures dropping below 60 degrees. It would be fair for you to say that we are spoiled.
I guess that I'll just put away my shorts and flip flops and settle in for the winter. Actually, it will probably be back in the 80's next week--they'll be in the bottom dresser drawer.
Hah...
I had to turn on the heat in our condo for the first time this fall, and I just checked the National Weather Service Site and it's 43 degrees outside.
Oh well, we made it to October 25th without temperatures dropping below 60 degrees. It would be fair for you to say that we are spoiled.
I guess that I'll just put away my shorts and flip flops and settle in for the winter. Actually, it will probably be back in the 80's next week--they'll be in the bottom dresser drawer.
Hah...
Let The Media Celebration Begin
It’s just a matter of time.
It could be today, or it could happen tomorrow.
They know that it’s coming, and they can barely wait. They wonder why it won’t hurry up?
What I’m talking about is the death of the 2000th member of the US armed forces in the Iraq war.
The media and the Cindy Sheehan branch of the US hating commie-pinko-pig war activists have been making their preparations for months now.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cindy Sheehan, the military mother who made her son's death in Iraq a rallying point for the anti-war movement, plans to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.
"I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached.
"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she said.
The death toll among U.S. military forces since the March 2003 invasion stood at 1,996 on Sunday.
What makes me sick is that you can almost see the newsroom editors and the wild eyed idiot reporters rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the event. To them, two thousand deaths is nothing more than a nice round figure—something to be celebrated and trumpeted as they smear the number across the front page headlines and rub the number into the mental wounds of the president and the patriotic, non-leftist members of the American population.
What makes number 2000 so special?
Why not 1977 or 1989?
Why is the loss of number two thousand any less painful for the individual soldier that has died, or the family and friends that have to endure and mourn his or her death?
Because it’s not the loss of the human life that is important to the media. It’s not the death of a brother or sister or husband or uncle or grandfather that is their concern.
Once again the media will use the spilled red blood of another American soldier as their own weapon of mass destruction—designed to undermine the US war effort in general and to target the Bush administration with their claims of “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.”
Same song, different verse.
Do we as a people have the stomach to continue the fight in the face of the constant media onslaught and the blitherings of the the Cindy Sheehans, Ted Kennedys, and Barbara Boxers?
I think so.
I sure hope so. We need to remember some important things here in this situation that really matter and are rarely mentioned.
First, the US employs an all volunteer military.
No draftees.
The people fighting today on our behalf CHOOSE to join the military, and the majority of them WANT to be where they are, in harms way, to do a very important job on behalf of the American people and the citizens of the free world.
Next, not to slight the deaths of the two thousand service members, but in reality the losses are miniscule when compared to previous conflicts.
Revolutionary War...............4,435 dead...........6,188 wounded
War of 1812.........................2,260 dead...........4,505 wounded
Mexican War......................13,283 dead...........4,152 wounded
Civil War..........................558,052 dead........412,175 wounded
Spanish American War.........2,446 dead...........1,662 wounded
WWI.................................116,708 dead.......204,002 wounded
WWII...............................407,316 dead.......670,846 wounded
Korean War.........................33,651 dead.......103,284 wounded
Vietnam War.......................58,168 dead........153,303 wounded
1st Gulf War.............................293 dead..............467 wounded
I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how anyone can celebrate the death of a soldier.
I'm fairly certain that all of the men and women represented on my list are less than happy with how some people choose to use the freedoms paid for with their lives and limbs.
It could be today, or it could happen tomorrow.
They know that it’s coming, and they can barely wait. They wonder why it won’t hurry up?
What I’m talking about is the death of the 2000th member of the US armed forces in the Iraq war.
The media and the Cindy Sheehan branch of the US hating commie-pinko-pig war activists have been making their preparations for months now.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cindy Sheehan, the military mother who made her son's death in Iraq a rallying point for the anti-war movement, plans to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.
"I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached.
"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she said.
The death toll among U.S. military forces since the March 2003 invasion stood at 1,996 on Sunday.
What makes me sick is that you can almost see the newsroom editors and the wild eyed idiot reporters rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the event. To them, two thousand deaths is nothing more than a nice round figure—something to be celebrated and trumpeted as they smear the number across the front page headlines and rub the number into the mental wounds of the president and the patriotic, non-leftist members of the American population.
What makes number 2000 so special?
Why not 1977 or 1989?
Why is the loss of number two thousand any less painful for the individual soldier that has died, or the family and friends that have to endure and mourn his or her death?
Because it’s not the loss of the human life that is important to the media. It’s not the death of a brother or sister or husband or uncle or grandfather that is their concern.
Once again the media will use the spilled red blood of another American soldier as their own weapon of mass destruction—designed to undermine the US war effort in general and to target the Bush administration with their claims of “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.”
Same song, different verse.
Do we as a people have the stomach to continue the fight in the face of the constant media onslaught and the blitherings of the the Cindy Sheehans, Ted Kennedys, and Barbara Boxers?
I think so.
I sure hope so. We need to remember some important things here in this situation that really matter and are rarely mentioned.
First, the US employs an all volunteer military.
No draftees.
The people fighting today on our behalf CHOOSE to join the military, and the majority of them WANT to be where they are, in harms way, to do a very important job on behalf of the American people and the citizens of the free world.
Next, not to slight the deaths of the two thousand service members, but in reality the losses are miniscule when compared to previous conflicts.
Revolutionary War...............4,435 dead...........6,188 wounded
War of 1812.........................2,260 dead...........4,505 wounded
Mexican War......................13,283 dead...........4,152 wounded
Civil War..........................558,052 dead........412,175 wounded
Spanish American War.........2,446 dead...........1,662 wounded
WWI.................................116,708 dead.......204,002 wounded
WWII...............................407,316 dead.......670,846 wounded
Korean War.........................33,651 dead.......103,284 wounded
Vietnam War.......................58,168 dead........153,303 wounded
1st Gulf War.............................293 dead..............467 wounded
I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how anyone can celebrate the death of a soldier.
I'm fairly certain that all of the men and women represented on my list are less than happy with how some people choose to use the freedoms paid for with their lives and limbs.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Much Ado About Bird Flu
Are You Still Worrying?
I’ve already put in my two cents worth about the total non-story that the possible “Bird Flu” pandemic is. You can read it here in my posting Buzzard Flu—Just More Media Static?
I still say that we really don’t need to spend much time worrying, but you won’t hear it from 99% of the stories in the main stream media. They just keep on hyping it endlessly.
Ironically I found a very good story in, of all places, Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, written by someone other than a dunderheaded news reporter. Author Wendy Orent seems to know more than a few things about how diseases can jump from birds to humans:
News reports make the threat even more ominous. In resurrecting the 1918 pandemic virus, the deadliest flu strain of all time, researchers recently learned that this strain was far deadlier than any other human virus — it killed mice, while normal human flu won't even ruffle a mouse's fur. They also found out that all of its genes came, directly or indirectly, from birds. Unlike the pandemics of 1957 and 1968, the 1918 version didn't arise from a combination of bird and mammal genes. Instead, the bird genes evolved into a human virus that killed as many as 50 million people.
This means, say breathless news reports, that what happened in 1918 could happen again, this time with H5N1. But Peter Palese doesn't think so. He is lab director at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, where the technique that re-created the 1918 genes — known as reverse genetic engineering — was developed. He and associate Adolfo Garcia-Sastre contend that what the resurrected virus really shows is how supremely adapted it is — how well its parts fit together, how perfectly it works. The sublime malignance of the 1918 virus doesn't lie in one part but rather in how the genes function together. Evolution shaped this virus to be a sleek, effective killing machine…
In nature, flu viruses in birds are intestinal diseases. Through feces, flu particles are deposited in water, where another duck or goose picks them up, gets infected and sheds the virus in turn. Wild-bird flu depends on mobile hosts to spread. If flu strains kill their hosts in the wild, the lethal versions will vanish. This is why evolution pushes wild-bird strains toward mildness.
To think that the 1918 flu started out as a harmless intestinal bird virus that jumped directly from its wild host into human beings and immediately turned into an explosive respiratory killer is to believe that hippos fly. Evolution doesn't work that way. The flu's genes came from birds, but it's what they did when they got into humans that matters...
The lesson here is that the flu virus, like all of life, is subject to evolution. Lethal diseases don't fall out of the sky. They evolve in the context of a host and that host's conditions of life. There is no sign, so far, that H5N1 is turning into a human disease — effectively spreading from person to person. Even if it does, it needs a Western Front to become more than ordinary.
See, I bet that you haven’t heard any of that before, particularly if you rely on the TV news and most newspapers.
So take off your gas mask and put away your tissues, everything's gonna be OK.
I’ve already put in my two cents worth about the total non-story that the possible “Bird Flu” pandemic is. You can read it here in my posting Buzzard Flu—Just More Media Static?
I still say that we really don’t need to spend much time worrying, but you won’t hear it from 99% of the stories in the main stream media. They just keep on hyping it endlessly.
Ironically I found a very good story in, of all places, Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, written by someone other than a dunderheaded news reporter. Author Wendy Orent seems to know more than a few things about how diseases can jump from birds to humans:
News reports make the threat even more ominous. In resurrecting the 1918 pandemic virus, the deadliest flu strain of all time, researchers recently learned that this strain was far deadlier than any other human virus — it killed mice, while normal human flu won't even ruffle a mouse's fur. They also found out that all of its genes came, directly or indirectly, from birds. Unlike the pandemics of 1957 and 1968, the 1918 version didn't arise from a combination of bird and mammal genes. Instead, the bird genes evolved into a human virus that killed as many as 50 million people.
This means, say breathless news reports, that what happened in 1918 could happen again, this time with H5N1. But Peter Palese doesn't think so. He is lab director at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, where the technique that re-created the 1918 genes — known as reverse genetic engineering — was developed. He and associate Adolfo Garcia-Sastre contend that what the resurrected virus really shows is how supremely adapted it is — how well its parts fit together, how perfectly it works. The sublime malignance of the 1918 virus doesn't lie in one part but rather in how the genes function together. Evolution shaped this virus to be a sleek, effective killing machine…
In nature, flu viruses in birds are intestinal diseases. Through feces, flu particles are deposited in water, where another duck or goose picks them up, gets infected and sheds the virus in turn. Wild-bird flu depends on mobile hosts to spread. If flu strains kill their hosts in the wild, the lethal versions will vanish. This is why evolution pushes wild-bird strains toward mildness.
To think that the 1918 flu started out as a harmless intestinal bird virus that jumped directly from its wild host into human beings and immediately turned into an explosive respiratory killer is to believe that hippos fly. Evolution doesn't work that way. The flu's genes came from birds, but it's what they did when they got into humans that matters...
The lesson here is that the flu virus, like all of life, is subject to evolution. Lethal diseases don't fall out of the sky. They evolve in the context of a host and that host's conditions of life. There is no sign, so far, that H5N1 is turning into a human disease — effectively spreading from person to person. Even if it does, it needs a Western Front to become more than ordinary.
See, I bet that you haven’t heard any of that before, particularly if you rely on the TV news and most newspapers.
So take off your gas mask and put away your tissues, everything's gonna be OK.
I’d Keep My Day Job
(If I Had One)
Well, I was wrong in my Hurricane Predictions Posting guessing that Hurricane Wilma was going to track further north than predicted.
I guessed she would come ashore in the Tampa Sarasota area, but apparently these guys at the National Hurricane Center really know what they are doing.
Wilma is currently sliding north of Key West toward Ft. Meyers and her eye should be on land about 7:00 AM. I hate to see what is happening on Sanibel and Captiva Islands. I hope they don’t wash away.
Regarding the accuracy of the forecast track, it is really nice to see our taxpayer money being spent on something that ACTUALLY WORKS the way it is supposed to.
Well, I was wrong in my Hurricane Predictions Posting guessing that Hurricane Wilma was going to track further north than predicted.
I guessed she would come ashore in the Tampa Sarasota area, but apparently these guys at the National Hurricane Center really know what they are doing.
Wilma is currently sliding north of Key West toward Ft. Meyers and her eye should be on land about 7:00 AM. I hate to see what is happening on Sanibel and Captiva Islands. I hope they don’t wash away.
Regarding the accuracy of the forecast track, it is really nice to see our taxpayer money being spent on something that ACTUALLY WORKS the way it is supposed to.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
“Public Television”
No--It’s not what you think...
Isn't it amazing how the government's 20th century discovery of its "ownership" of the radio frequency spectrum continues to cause so many problems? Legislation begets legislation, taxes beget taxes, and even when there aren’t any real problems it seems like the government goes out of their way to create issues so they can solve them, usually by—you guessed it—raising taxes.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was formed in 1934 and the first thing they did was start issuing broadcast licenses. Of course we were to believe the regulation was for “our own good.” They wanted to ensure the orderly use of the AM radio transmissions in the early 1900’s. This sorta made sense because in theory they didn’t want one radio station to interfere with the signal of an adjacent station. So good, so far.
Back in the early days of radio when there were only a few dozen stations, the fledgling FCC probably didn’t have much to do except for sitting around scratching their unmentionable body parts. You can, however, thank the FCC for doing important things like creating the ATT telephone monopoly that existed for years and instituting the one cable company per city cable TV monopolies that we still all enjoy today.
The FCC also mandates that every radio station and TV station use some of THEIR MONEY to provide some level of nebulus “public service” to the community. I guess that things like broadcasting the Emergency Broadcast Announcements and providing free commercial air time to certain politically correct groups comes under this heading.
Then there is that outdated, useless bastion of liberal drivel—the Public Broadcast System. Don’t Eeeeeeven get me started…
So anyway, it wasn’t long before things in the broadcast business started changing.
When FM radio and TV came along, the government continued to employ the practice of selling the frequencies to station operators through the use of a “licensing fee.” Of course back then a 10,000 watt transmitter was the size of a small house and cost a tidy fortune to own and operate, so broadcasters were still few and far between and the availability of frequencies still wasn’t much of an issue.
A distance of tens of miles between transmitters and receivers has been reduced to tens of feet today, however. In our household alone we have two cellular phones, two portable phones, two TV’s, three AM/FM radios, two radio controlled model cars, and a wireless computer network. Every one of these devices operates on a different piece of the electronic spectrum, and all of the signals are analog.
The bad news is that with analog signals there is a certain amount of “signal spread” and noise that goes along with the transmission of the signal that can interfere with adjacent signal frequencies. For this reason, the output power of the transmitters is limited by law and the analog frequencies have to be spaced a certain distance apart to prevent bleed-over and other forms of interference. Each individual user also has to be aware of their own frequency mix in order to not suffer from a bad case of self induced electronic gobblygook with their toys and appliances.
Now along comes the “digital TV revolution,” something highly touted by the TV industry and sanctioned by the government. They’ve already started doing limited broadcasting of digital signals and in 2009 they plan on ending all analog TV broadcasts in favor of digital.
The advantage of digital broadcasts is that they can contain more data than analog and the digital signals can be packed closer together than analog signals. This means that you can get maybe a thousand different digital signals in the same frequency space occupied by only a few dozen analog signals. The bad news is that after 2009 your old analog TV will be little more than an oversized paperweight or end table unless you have a digital converter box.
Enter our old friends, THE GOVERNMENT.
In their rush to convert to digital and resell the analog frequencies for even more cash, the government wants to speed up the conversion process by two years, thereby speeding up the necessity for set owners to make the conversion from analog to digital. Of course the government can fix this new problem they’re creating, but they need $3 BILLION of our tax money to solve it.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers want to spend $3 billion to make sure millions of Americans won't wake up to blank TV screens when the country makes the switch to all-digital broadcasts.
The subsidy was approved Thursday by the Senate Commerce Committee as part of legislation that would set April 7, 2009, as the firm date for television broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions and send their broadcasts via digital signals.
Digital television promises sharper pictures and better sound than analog TV. But millions of Americans with older TV sets rely solely on free, over the-air-television, and they'll need some type of a converter box to keep receiving their television service. Cable and satellite customers won't be affected.
Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said Congress needs to do something to help consumers with the older analog sets, an estimated 21 million households. "If we're mandating this (digital) conversion, we cannot leave people behind because they can't afford" digital television sets, he said.
The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating. The subsidy would be available for all those households with older televisions, and it would pay for converter boxes for all the TVs in a particular household, regardless of financial status.
Stevens estimates that the converter boxes would cost about $50. His plan would call for the government to pay roughly $40, and the consumer would make a co-payment of $10.
(Math Check: 21 million households x $40 = $840 million. Where do they get their $3 BILLION figure? Apparently they're planning on handing out subsidy's for 3.5 TV's per household.)
What appears to be driving this issue is industry’s supposed "need" for additional frequencies for use by police departments and other “first responders” and the government’s greed to resell the old analog TV frequencies to them for a tidy profit. Of course they can't just put the money into the budget and lower our tax burden. Instead they have to convert it into another cash giveaway welfare program.
Don’t misunderstand them here—they’re not talking about High Definition TV (HDTV)—they’re talking digital TV. High Definition TV requires a digital signal, but all digital TV’s won’t be high definition. And while the digital television signal can produce “sharper pictures and better sound” on a new digital or high definition TV, don’t expect the government provided converter box to make your old 1975 model 19” Sears Television set to suddenly start producing crisp, sharp pictures with Dolby surround sound, because it won’t.
If you have a crappy TV before the conversion, then all you will have after the digital conversion will be a crappy TV with another converter box sitting on top. Now it’s just a matter of who pays for the converter box, and as usual the government thinks that we’re too stupid or too poor to take care of ourselves.
I say let the industry and the market decide what people want and when they want it. Why didn’t the government go out and buy everyone a cassette player when cassettes became popular in the 1970’s? Why didn’t they then replace everyone’s cassette and record players when CD players took over the music industry? Or what about starting a government program to provide consumers with DVD players to replace their VCR because you can hardly find a video tape to rent down at Blockbuster?
What’s the difference here?
I suspect that if the government had interjected themselves into the recording industry like they have the broadcast business that we’d still be enjoying songs on vinyl records and listening to the lovely “clunk” of the track change on an 8 track player. Instead, the government by and large stayed the hell out of the record business and as a result we’ve seen gigantic improvements in the quality of the audio sound we listen to in our cars and homes. Due to normal market conditions, they’re practically giving away DVD players today. Imagine how much they’d cost if the FCC had been involved?
I personally have avoided buying anything digital or “high definition.” Instead we enjoy a nice 36” flat screen TV that’s a number of years old and we’ll use it until it dies because I think that the digital and high definition standards are still a little shaky. A lot of people are buying TV’s purported to be able to be upgraded to “high definition” in the future, only to find out that the conversion costs almost as much as a new TV.
You see, I’m aware of the coming digital conversion and I’m PLANNING to avoid getting caught with a bunch of year old analog TV’s when the change occurs. I am also afraid that in our consumer culture that many more people will own digital TV’s by the cutoff date of analog TV than the government estimates, and as a result the demand for converters will be insignificant and the price will be astronomical as a result.
The other thing that bothers me about this plan is that the government probably won’t be able to resist making the program “progressive.” Just like taxes, they’ll probably put an income limitation on the subsidy causing “wealthy” TV owners to receive less than “working families” and “the poor.” I bet that they make it like the earned income credit and pay the cash to everyone under a certain income level, regardless of whether the individual has an analog TV or not. Maybe they’ll decide that it isn’t fair that “the poor” don’t have a TV in every room and start handing out new digital TV's.
I sorta want to take a "tough shit" attitude toward people that expect the government to ensure their constitutional right to watch TV in their kitchen and bathroom. If you're walking around in $200 sneakers and a "starter jersey," endlessly talking on a cellphone, I believe that you can buy your own digital TV.
You've got four years notice...
(Hat Tip to the lovely propriator of Capital Freedom for the link to this story.)
Isn't it amazing how the government's 20th century discovery of its "ownership" of the radio frequency spectrum continues to cause so many problems? Legislation begets legislation, taxes beget taxes, and even when there aren’t any real problems it seems like the government goes out of their way to create issues so they can solve them, usually by—you guessed it—raising taxes.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was formed in 1934 and the first thing they did was start issuing broadcast licenses. Of course we were to believe the regulation was for “our own good.” They wanted to ensure the orderly use of the AM radio transmissions in the early 1900’s. This sorta made sense because in theory they didn’t want one radio station to interfere with the signal of an adjacent station. So good, so far.
Back in the early days of radio when there were only a few dozen stations, the fledgling FCC probably didn’t have much to do except for sitting around scratching their unmentionable body parts. You can, however, thank the FCC for doing important things like creating the ATT telephone monopoly that existed for years and instituting the one cable company per city cable TV monopolies that we still all enjoy today.
The FCC also mandates that every radio station and TV station use some of THEIR MONEY to provide some level of nebulus “public service” to the community. I guess that things like broadcasting the Emergency Broadcast Announcements and providing free commercial air time to certain politically correct groups comes under this heading.
Then there is that outdated, useless bastion of liberal drivel—the Public Broadcast System. Don’t Eeeeeeven get me started…
So anyway, it wasn’t long before things in the broadcast business started changing.
When FM radio and TV came along, the government continued to employ the practice of selling the frequencies to station operators through the use of a “licensing fee.” Of course back then a 10,000 watt transmitter was the size of a small house and cost a tidy fortune to own and operate, so broadcasters were still few and far between and the availability of frequencies still wasn’t much of an issue.
A distance of tens of miles between transmitters and receivers has been reduced to tens of feet today, however. In our household alone we have two cellular phones, two portable phones, two TV’s, three AM/FM radios, two radio controlled model cars, and a wireless computer network. Every one of these devices operates on a different piece of the electronic spectrum, and all of the signals are analog.
The bad news is that with analog signals there is a certain amount of “signal spread” and noise that goes along with the transmission of the signal that can interfere with adjacent signal frequencies. For this reason, the output power of the transmitters is limited by law and the analog frequencies have to be spaced a certain distance apart to prevent bleed-over and other forms of interference. Each individual user also has to be aware of their own frequency mix in order to not suffer from a bad case of self induced electronic gobblygook with their toys and appliances.
Now along comes the “digital TV revolution,” something highly touted by the TV industry and sanctioned by the government. They’ve already started doing limited broadcasting of digital signals and in 2009 they plan on ending all analog TV broadcasts in favor of digital.
The advantage of digital broadcasts is that they can contain more data than analog and the digital signals can be packed closer together than analog signals. This means that you can get maybe a thousand different digital signals in the same frequency space occupied by only a few dozen analog signals. The bad news is that after 2009 your old analog TV will be little more than an oversized paperweight or end table unless you have a digital converter box.
Enter our old friends, THE GOVERNMENT.
In their rush to convert to digital and resell the analog frequencies for even more cash, the government wants to speed up the conversion process by two years, thereby speeding up the necessity for set owners to make the conversion from analog to digital. Of course the government can fix this new problem they’re creating, but they need $3 BILLION of our tax money to solve it.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers want to spend $3 billion to make sure millions of Americans won't wake up to blank TV screens when the country makes the switch to all-digital broadcasts.
The subsidy was approved Thursday by the Senate Commerce Committee as part of legislation that would set April 7, 2009, as the firm date for television broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions and send their broadcasts via digital signals.
Digital television promises sharper pictures and better sound than analog TV. But millions of Americans with older TV sets rely solely on free, over the-air-television, and they'll need some type of a converter box to keep receiving their television service. Cable and satellite customers won't be affected.
Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said Congress needs to do something to help consumers with the older analog sets, an estimated 21 million households. "If we're mandating this (digital) conversion, we cannot leave people behind because they can't afford" digital television sets, he said.
The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating. The subsidy would be available for all those households with older televisions, and it would pay for converter boxes for all the TVs in a particular household, regardless of financial status.
Stevens estimates that the converter boxes would cost about $50. His plan would call for the government to pay roughly $40, and the consumer would make a co-payment of $10.
(Math Check: 21 million households x $40 = $840 million. Where do they get their $3 BILLION figure? Apparently they're planning on handing out subsidy's for 3.5 TV's per household.)
What appears to be driving this issue is industry’s supposed "need" for additional frequencies for use by police departments and other “first responders” and the government’s greed to resell the old analog TV frequencies to them for a tidy profit. Of course they can't just put the money into the budget and lower our tax burden. Instead they have to convert it into another cash giveaway welfare program.
Don’t misunderstand them here—they’re not talking about High Definition TV (HDTV)—they’re talking digital TV. High Definition TV requires a digital signal, but all digital TV’s won’t be high definition. And while the digital television signal can produce “sharper pictures and better sound” on a new digital or high definition TV, don’t expect the government provided converter box to make your old 1975 model 19” Sears Television set to suddenly start producing crisp, sharp pictures with Dolby surround sound, because it won’t.
If you have a crappy TV before the conversion, then all you will have after the digital conversion will be a crappy TV with another converter box sitting on top. Now it’s just a matter of who pays for the converter box, and as usual the government thinks that we’re too stupid or too poor to take care of ourselves.
I say let the industry and the market decide what people want and when they want it. Why didn’t the government go out and buy everyone a cassette player when cassettes became popular in the 1970’s? Why didn’t they then replace everyone’s cassette and record players when CD players took over the music industry? Or what about starting a government program to provide consumers with DVD players to replace their VCR because you can hardly find a video tape to rent down at Blockbuster?
What’s the difference here?
I suspect that if the government had interjected themselves into the recording industry like they have the broadcast business that we’d still be enjoying songs on vinyl records and listening to the lovely “clunk” of the track change on an 8 track player. Instead, the government by and large stayed the hell out of the record business and as a result we’ve seen gigantic improvements in the quality of the audio sound we listen to in our cars and homes. Due to normal market conditions, they’re practically giving away DVD players today. Imagine how much they’d cost if the FCC had been involved?
I personally have avoided buying anything digital or “high definition.” Instead we enjoy a nice 36” flat screen TV that’s a number of years old and we’ll use it until it dies because I think that the digital and high definition standards are still a little shaky. A lot of people are buying TV’s purported to be able to be upgraded to “high definition” in the future, only to find out that the conversion costs almost as much as a new TV.
You see, I’m aware of the coming digital conversion and I’m PLANNING to avoid getting caught with a bunch of year old analog TV’s when the change occurs. I am also afraid that in our consumer culture that many more people will own digital TV’s by the cutoff date of analog TV than the government estimates, and as a result the demand for converters will be insignificant and the price will be astronomical as a result.
The other thing that bothers me about this plan is that the government probably won’t be able to resist making the program “progressive.” Just like taxes, they’ll probably put an income limitation on the subsidy causing “wealthy” TV owners to receive less than “working families” and “the poor.” I bet that they make it like the earned income credit and pay the cash to everyone under a certain income level, regardless of whether the individual has an analog TV or not. Maybe they’ll decide that it isn’t fair that “the poor” don’t have a TV in every room and start handing out new digital TV's.
I sorta want to take a "tough shit" attitude toward people that expect the government to ensure their constitutional right to watch TV in their kitchen and bathroom. If you're walking around in $200 sneakers and a "starter jersey," endlessly talking on a cellphone, I believe that you can buy your own digital TV.
You've got four years notice...
(Hat Tip to the lovely propriator of Capital Freedom for the link to this story.)
