Caught In Passing

From an MSNBC newsblog:

Mr. Bush is on the final day of his Western swing, where he has two events: a meeting with the head of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City and a fundraiser for a Republican House challenger in Kansas, both closed to coverage.

It's probably nothing exciting--a thank-you visit for our humanitarian efforts, most likely--but interesting, nonetheless. Since we never hear about this, it makes one wonder how often this happens.

Things Always Go Boom Eventually....

I don't know if that's an exact "Ivonova Quote", but it works.

O.S. Card has a new essay out. This time he's skewering Obama about how he should have handled Bush's "appeasement" speech. Or at least he starts out that way.

What he has to say there isn't anything major. My thoughts, pretty much, only more eloquently (and lengthily) put. But then he segues into what Obama's response means for the future: Obama really IS a believer in appeasement, and that spells trouble.

He then dives into a little bit of political history on the election between Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan during the Civil War:

Lincoln, facing probably defeat in the election, called together his cabinet and handed them a sealed memorandum, which he directed that they should sign as witnesses, so that when, after the election, the document was opened, they would know that this was what Lincoln had written at that time.

Here's what was in that memo:

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probably [sic] that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the Government President elect, as to save the Union between the Election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards."

Lincoln's point was plain: McClellan had so bound himself to the promise to declare defeat by negotiating an end to the war that Lincoln had to make sure that between the election and the inauguration the war was won so there would be nothing for his successor to negotiate.

Furthermore, it is an obvious historical fact, supported by evidence from the South, that because McClellan was running with the pledge to let the South have its victory in the Civil War after all, the Confederacy based all its hopes on prolonging the war long enough for McClellan to become president.

In short, Card is suggesting that Bush is preparing to make a decisive blow against Iran in case Obama or Hillary get elected and mess everything up. And if he's not planning that, he should.

Meanwhile, Obama, by his own admission, is precisely the kind of candidate who makes the writing of such a memo necessary.

That's scary stuff. Especially in light of a buildup of forces in the region. It could be nothing. It could be a big something. It could be...

[music cue]...the end of the world as we know it! [/music cue]

Okay, that said, I don't know whether to hope Card is right or wrong on this one. I do find myself hoping that Obama won't win so we don't have to find out right away.

Warning: No Puns Were Spared In This Post

Q: What do you call a nun in a tower?
A: Nun of the above

Q: What do you call a nun who can run an entire marathon without getting tired?
A: Nun too healthy

Q: What do you call a nun who earns at least a C grade in all her courses?
A: Nun shall pass

Q: What do you call a nun who works for you?
A: Nun of your business

Q: What do you call the end of this post?
A: Nun too soon!

In Offensive

Joseph Lieberman has written an editorial in the Wall Street Journal outlining his thoughts on national security and the Democractic Party. I can't speak for his domestic record, but when it comes to foreign policy, Joe's got it right:

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Appeasement and Obama - My Take

As if it matters what I think. ;-)

Obama had every chance to ignore Bush's remarks in Israel. It's clear that Obama is not the only one calling for talks with enemy powers. Lots of people in many countries are saying the same thing. He could have claimed the comments weren't directed at him because "appeasement" is not his intention.

But no, he pleads guilty in rising to what may not even have been bait. By objecting he's essentially said that "Yeah, I guess what I want to do could be called appeasement, so you were talking about me!"

McCain, meanwhile, probably should have just kept his mouth shut and let Obama hang himself. But his response of "Obama favors talking with these people. I just want to know what he plans to say" is immensely valid, and for Obama to pretend it's not means he's got something to hide. The American public deserves a chance to vote for the person they think would have the best things to say to our enemies.

Why not answer McCain's question? What if the things he would say are all the right things? Wouldn't that HELP his candidacy? Wouldn't that PROVE he's got the foreign policy chops to get the job done? Why isn't he welcoming the chance instead of throwing up an smokescreen and dodging the issue...again?

Instead he's falling back on his standard response to any criticism: "How dare you bring that up! That's off limits! I won't even validate such criticism with a response! And that goes for both of you, even though McCain was saying something entirely different!"

Meanwhile, he's also mixing in his own brand of misinformation. Bush has not, as he and Hillary claim, been going it alone on Iran. Iran is one place he HAS been working with other nations. There have been times when the other nations have actually talked tougher on Iran than we have. The "Cowboy Diplomacy" they accuse Bush of is exactly what he's NOT been doing with Iran.

So what Obama is really telling us here is that Bush's multi-national approach is not working, and that HE will solve the problem ALL BY HIMSELF by talking to our enemies. This particular quote by Obama is interesting:

"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

This leaves me more confused. He initially claimed we need to talk to these nations. Now he's saying that talk isn't enough--we need to act. So what exactly is he proposing? Why not lay it out for us so we can see how his approach is so different--and better--than Bush's?

I heard no mention of working with other world powers on this. So after so many years of criticizing Bush for "going it alone" that's exactly what HE wants to do! And if we're going to go it alone to back up his talk, just what exactly does he plan to say?! McCain has it right! I want to know!

But he won't say. He does everything in his power, including sulking like my five year old whenever anyone says anything that could be taken as criticism of him. Why on earth would we want this to be our face to the world for the next four years?

Here We Go Again...

I've got another article from Orson Scott Card to foist upon you! This week he tackles science, Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with his assertions.

To be honest, I have to wonder now if he is really putting into words the things I've already believed but never worked through, or if he's just outright convincing me of what he believes. Perhaps I should read his work more critically.

But he writes so well it's really hard for me to argue.

Space Monkey Mafia

more cat pictures

This one just strikes me funny for some reason...and perhaps I can relate a little. To the monkey? To the victim? Short answer...yes.

Gore is So 2004

It seems Gore doesn't bother to keep current on climate research. According to an article in Investor's Business Daily Gore has blamed the cyclone and resulting deaths in Myanmar on Global Warming:

There's a "trend toward more Category 5 storms," Gore claimed, and this trend "appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet in the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful."

He's wrong on two points. First of all, recent science has indicated that Global Warming results in fewer, less-powerful hurricanes. Second, research has indicated that ocean temperature has been on the decline for the last five years.

Furthermore, Global Warming enthusiasts are always quick to point out that any weather that doesn't match up with the idea of increasing temperatures is a statistical anomaly, or more colloquially, "weather is local, climate is global". So if I can't claim that the US experiencing one of the coldest winters in some time is a sign against Global Warming, then Gore can't claim that one nasty cyclone is proof positive. You can't have it both ways.

The article goes on to claim that Gore is purposely making these misleading statements in order to keep the public excited about green technologies, which he has invested heavily in as of late. I don't know about that. One man's market manipulation is another man's "putting his money where his mouth is". I'll give him a pass on that.

But not on ignoring two of the most important climate research studies in recent months. For someone of his prominence who claims authority on the issue, ignorance is inexcusable.

Time Travel Trolls

(hat-tip Instapundit)

This is too good! Someone has written a time travel story as a comments forum.

It's good for a chuckle, anyway.

Organized Crime

I've been trying a new organization method to help make me more effective. I have to admit that all it seems to be accomplishing at the moment is making me tired just thinking about all that I have to do. I had an entire evening to work on stuff tonight and what did I do? I transferred all the peripherals that I've been attaching to my computer via the ports on the front to the ports on the back so it looks a little nicer and has fewer cords sticking out all over.

I guess that's something. And I was able to listen to our local congressman's town hall phone conference while I worked, thus justifying the outlay for the speaker phone last week. Yay! Other than that, I feel tired and overwhelmed. I just want to go to bed.

I guess if I look back over my list of tasks and see all that I've crossed off since last week I've done quite a bit. It just seems like there's always more to do, and all I'm accomplishing are the "low-hanging fruit" while I avoid the big stuff.

Fiddle-dee-dee, Ashley. I'll think about that tomorrow.