October 2, 2006 issue of of Time magazine contains an article written by Tim Padgett. As I mentioned in a previous post of Time, the picture of Hugo Chavez is one which is favorable to Chavez. It makes him appear strong and real for lack of better adjectives. See the capture below.

This article was written from of the attention garnered by Chavez when he called President Bush "the devil" during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week. The calm firestorm which came from the many Americans was one of disgust as Mr. Padgett informs Hugo Chavez in the interview. "He seemed genuinely surprised when I informed him that rebukes were pouring in from liberals in the US Congress over the way he insulted Bush on US soil," writes Padgett. "Bush has called me worse," Chavez said, with a shrug.. continues Padgett.

Chavez then refers to the names he accused Bush of using, "Tyrant, populist dictator, drug trafficker." I don't know whether Chavez are these are not. Regardless of these he has no inhabitions about socializing the economy. The government owns the oil, brings in all the revenue and distributes it somehow. Billions. Per the Time article it may be about $40 Billion this year. This figure has more than tripled in the last 10 years. All this wealth and Chavez has to show, medical clinics in the barrios, 7 Eleven canceling Citgo's contract and an economy which had promise when he took office and is now failing in true 3rd world standards.

7 Eleven, Citgo and Chavez

After watching the speech at the UN General Assembly last week by Hugo Chavez, I was offended and angry. Then when I heard the news 7 Eleven would not be renewing it's contract with Citgo (Venezuelan government owned oil company) it made me proud enough to writ the following to 7 Eleven customer relations;

"I watched the speech at the UN General Assembly and in New York, when Hugo Chavez spoke negatively about the President. Because of the decision of 7Eleven to not renew contracts with CITGO, when needing gas or a gallon of milk I will now search out 7 Eleven stores to make my purchases. There is a store just 1 mile from my residence which I have used before. Now I will always use this station. Thank you for making this decision. You have just won another loyal customer. I will be sure to tell everyone I know what a positive thing your company has done for this country."

5th Anniversary of 9/11

I have been watching C-Span2 for an hour as family members of those who died in the Towers are reading their loved ones names. The is real. I have respect. I am sad and angry all over again. If I always feel like this on September 11, then I still care.

"CNN.com to replay 9/11 attacks coverage"

Posted on Yahoo News;

NEW YORK - CNN will mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks by replaying on the Internet the cable network's coverage of that day's events.

ADVERTISEMENT

Viewers can watch how events unfolded starting at 8:30 a.m., minutes before the first reports of an airplane hitting the World Trade Center. The feed will run in real time, as the network showed it five years ago, until midnight.

For the day, CNN will make its online video service, CNN Pipeline, available for free. Normally, viewers pay $2.95 a month or $24.95 a year for four separate video feeds.

Online viewers will be able to watch live reports of memorial services through one of the feeds. So that viewers won't accidentally stumble upon graphic footage from 2001, the replay feed will be covered with a notice instructing users to click only if they want to watch.

"Our users may choose to view the stream of coverage from Sept. 11, 2001, or live coverage of memorial services at Ground Zero, or they may click through the numerous interactive elements on the site," said David Payne, senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com. "They have the power to determine the best way for them to remember the anniversary."

CNN is a unit of Time Warner Inc.

Syria Angry at Plans for International Force

The AP reported Syria is stating an international force on the border between Lebanon and Israel would be an aggressive act.

"Syria warns against deployment of troops
AP - 44 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israel's foreign minister said Wednesday the situation in Lebanon was "explosive" while Syria's president says the deployment of international troops along the Syria-Lebanon border would be a "hostile" act. The escalating rhetoric came as the 10-day cease-fire was shaken by the deaths of three Lebanese soldiers killed defusing a missile and an Israeli killed by a land mine in south Lebanon."

Syria appears to be in a temper-tantrum because because they are obviously not getting what they wanted. If Syria truly was not involved in Hezbollah, then it would not have made such a statement. Syria has something to gain and lose in the outcome of this conflict and they just showed part of their hand. It is time for the U.N. to "call" and "raise" Hezbollah.

Lou Dobbs and his contempt for Adam Smith

He has become so cynical and pessimistic I have stopped reading and watching Lou Dobbs with regularity. While I was reading CNN today I saw Lou had an article linked titled “It’s good to be a Superpower”.

He not only shows again his cynicism, this article he adds a degree of hate capitalism and it appears to me contempt for the US. My assessment of him may not be accurate for I do not know the man personally. I suppose he could also simply be ignorant. He may have never read Wealth of Nations. Remember, he is a journalist, a master of none.

I have linked articles and EU charts which disagree with Lou’s article.
GERMAN IMPORTS RISE FROM CHINA

WORLD EXPORTS AND US IMPORTS

Per this article it appears the US buys roughly 23% of the world clothing output, while we have less than 5% of the world population. If it were not for the US purchasing products from other nations, their clothing industries everywhere would contract painfully or maybe collapse. If a company suffered a 23% loss in sales, what do you think would happen to the company? Mass layoffs, possible closure or sale to a another firm?

According to this article, clothing imports are up in Europe.

The real news is what the Dutch have done to their clothing import trade. The article appears to suggest the Dutch government has applied an import duty on textiles and clothing. The import market has fallen dramtically. This not only raises prices on imports, but it will inevitably raise the price per unit of clothing made in country. Artificially softening competition in a nation will always allow prices to rise.
“Prices go up
This big fall in the Netherlands was due mainly to a big price increase of 203 per cent to an average 15.89 euros per kg paid by Dutch importers in the first quarter.
EU importers on the whole in the first quarter also saw an increase in prices of 21.1 per cent in knitted clothing and 12.7 per cent in woven clothing.
The average cost for knitted clothing was 13.56 euros per kg and 17.21 euros per kg in woven clothing.”


But is not only Lou Dobbs who does not understand the world's market economy. The Washington Post also has a story, "China to Raise Tariffs On Clothing Exports". It is about China's textile exporting. If people are buying China's clothing, they must be satisfied with a) the quality, with relation to b)the price.

Regarding the possibility of China's export tax, The New York Times adds the most meaningful bit of information I have read from the media to date. Yes, the quality. China clothing manufacturers understand this... If all they make is inexpensive and lower quality clothing, they are limited in their market. However if some of China's clothes are of higher quality (and would still be relatively inexpensive versus US or EU produced clothing, then the China textile market will find new and more customers. The market always finds it's own way.

Greenpeace Co-Founder, "Grew Up"

Moore on envrionmental extremism, Nuclear Energy, deforestation, global warming.

Civilians Will Suffer, Even in a Just War

David Bernstein from the Washington Post.

2006 Hurrican Season & Global Warming

One year ago I was still in denial. I did not believe the Earth was warming and I did not think "we" had anything to do with it. A year has seen change and some "digging in."

A record number of hurricanes and some fierce storms came off the Atlantic in 2005. It was a field (day) year for alarmists. There were those who made their predictions for 2006. As the previous is from Wikipedia, it has the potential to change. Below will be cut and paste as to never leave the corridors of history:

On May 22, 2006, NOAA released their forecasts for the 2006 season. They predict 13 to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, and 4 to 6 becoming major hurricanes.[5]

On May 31, 2006, Klotzbach's team released their final pre-season forecast for 2006, confirming their previous numbers.[6]

Midseason Outlook

On August 3, 2006, Klotzbach's team lowered their season estimate to 15 named storms, with 7 becoming hurricanes and 3 becoming major hurricanes. They noted that conditions have become less favorable than they were earlier in the year. The sea level pressure and trade wind strength in the tropical Atlantic are above normal, while sea surface temperatures are on a decreasing trend.[7]


It is important to note the table posted to the page:

Record high activity (2005): 28 15 8
CSU 5 December 2005 predicted; 17 9 5
CSU 3 August 2006, now the lowered prediction: 15 7 3
Activity to date: 3 - -

If there is so much need for alarm, then why has CSU reduced their own 2006 predictions? We are almost half way through the hurrican season. If the conditions we so ripe as they were in 2005, we should have had 8-10 hurricanes by now and at least 3 major. So far, 3 wimpy tropical storms; Alberto, Beryl and Chris.

I am trying to be open minded. But could someone throw me a bone?

Plus I have a bet with a young lady, there will be less than 5 hurricanes total this year. If she wins (more than 5 hurricanes) I drink tobasco sauce. If I win (5 or less), she will do something similar, She loves Tobasco and habaneros. Let us hope for less destruction and my win.

Law Enforcement Catch Serial Snipers

Police announce the Serial Snipers are the two in custody.

Little did other Phoenix residents know, they are also linked to the recent arson at a Walmart which shut down the store for some time. No injuries from the Walmart fire.

They both deserve the death penalty.

Phoenix Serial Sniper, Two Suspects Questioned

The below article is from AZCentral.com, a local news and entertainment publication. Do not believe the article's title when it says Phoenix was in the "grip" of fear... not true.

It may be some very good news coming from the Valley. A 10:00am press conference is scheduled to the Valley details.

Cuban Dictator Crisis

What if Fidel Castro really died?

How long has it been? 1959 is when Fidel Castro and his guerillas militarily took control of Havana. Wteadily he gained more control of Cuba until the whole the nation was communist with a central economy, socialized medicine and zero free speech.

Per Wikipedia "June 1960...Cuba nationalized some $850 million worth of US property and businesses. The revolutionary government grabbed control of the nation by nationalizing industry, expropriating property owned by Cubans and non-Cubans alike, collectivizing agriculture, and enacting policies which it claimed would benefit the population. While popular among the poor, these policies alienated many former supporters of the revolution among the Cuban middle and upper-classes. Over one million Cubans later migrated to the US, forming a vocal anti-Castro community in Miami, Florida." The economic changes are still held today, and the country is poor. The people have very little.

The Cuban's and families in Cuba still hate Castro. This week they have been parading and celebrating Castro's ailment. I think they may wish he pass. What could this mean to Cuba and Cubans, once Fidel Castro dies?

Currently Fidel's brother Raul is in charge of the country's affairs. Who is Raul Castro?

1) Wikipedia "According to an August 1, 2006 article in Time, he was responsible for overseeing the summary execution of 'scores' of soldiers loyal to deposed Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista after Batista's downfall."
2) Miguel A Faria MD, NewsMax, 2001

Do Cubans desire change?
Yes says a woman I spoke with named Zalenia. She is of Cuban decent and still visits family in Cuba a couple times per year. While the national news of the US shows video of support for Fidel as he is sick, Zalenia describes a different Cuba. "The people of Cuba do not have a choice of speech, they are poor, they hate Castro. The millions of Cubans living in Miami, Florida hate Castro... He has done nothing but ruin the Cuban economy and has killed thousands of countrymen. His brother Raul has himself killed thousands over the years of Fidel's power. "Cubans in Miami and Los Angeles are celebrating." Many in Cuba are as well.

The communist government in Cuba still has complete control over the national broadcasts and news. They still have Soviet-like officers in the street keeping people from granting interviews to foreign journalists. "We've been asked to keep things normal here, and to make sure that the revolution continues," said Daniel, a young social worker." -courtesy breitbart.com

I do not know what Cuban's will want. It is not clear whether Raul Castro will have the iron fist of his brother. Supposedly Raul does not have the natural charisma of his brother. He has not the same respect of Fidel. To make up for this handicap for power, Raul may have to be brutal again, if he wants to maintain the communist control of Cuba.

The hope is there will be a bloodless Revolution. Young Cubans will begin organizing rallies in the Havana streets, demanding more freedom, maybe democracy. Cuban exiles in the streets of Miami and LA I hope do the same. Build the political clout and pressure for revolutionary change again. With the death of Fidel Castro, let the birth of Cuban freedom begin.

No more death in Cuba, no more starving masses, and maybe someone can import a new car or two.

Charles Krauthammer on "Disproportianate"

Krauthammer

RofaSix - Threat of Islamic Facism

New find, RofaSix has a link and his own commentary on the subject of Rick Santorum's speech to the Press Club, Islamic Facism.

Where would Al Queda be today?

Interesting read from Arab News. Where would Al Queda be today if they had not attacked New York on 9/11?

BrightSurf.com

Interesting sight for science news and articles, BrightSurf.com.

Why Are Jews Not Dummies?

Often I have wondered why there seems to be so many successful Jews? It may be easy for many people to name name multiple successful Jews. Most historically have been democrats and a few Republicans. I see it daily in columnists in the media and radio. Voices of respect are three of my favorites; Charles Krauthammer - Washing Post columnist, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved - both syndicated radio hosts.

While Prager and Medved are conservative and I have little doubt Republican, Charles Krauthammer I do not believe professes himself to be Republican.

Let us get away from their political aisles and focus on their success.

I believe theie success comes from intelligence grown from years of living in "survival mode." Whether the Jewish person lives in Israel or elsewhere, they might feel this same survival mentality.

The ability to be intelligent may be largely inherited yet I think it is reasonable to ascertain how much someone learns is a) up to their motivation and b)environmental. I do not imagine there is any proof of one country's citizens have more inherintly intelligent people than another. Every nations bell curve of intlligence is likely similar. There are dummies, average folks and brilliance. The difference comes in when all members of the population are exposed to and compete for learning and use the knowledge productively. The raises the whole of a nation so even the dummies can become smarter dummies.

Adding the above theory to Israel's small size, small population (7 million in Israel) and their years of "surviving" with enemies at the front step and back porch, they have all learned to be a little more crafty, work harder, learn more... The nation has been pushed by outside pressures to succeed and keep up with the big boys. It is analogous to a small aluminum manufacturer competing with a titan manufacturer. The large Alcoa, for example, has competitive advantages in nearly all categories compared with a smaller company. If a small business wants to compete, I would think each employee must work harder, smarter and longer to develop the product and get awarded the contracts. A larger company nearly always has the advantage. But not everyone in the titan has to be intelligent or work hard. By and large the bigger company must have a good product, cost effective and a solid team. But there can be some laggerds who do not pull their wait and the company will still survive.

A small firm must have all employees firing on all cylinders. Their team is smaller, they each may do more than one specialized job and the impact felt by each employee is more easily seen and felt. The lead engineer may have to write contract proposals one day, an office manager take a sales call, while the President brews a new cup of coffee. A week link in the small firm is a more critical problem. So it is with the nation of Israel with few people, expected to wear many hats (each male must spend 2 years in the military). They must care for their families, be successful at business and all the other "normal" problems in a typical life. Add to this the constant pressure of knowing millions of people would like nothing more than to see you and your family dead with no rationale.

Pressure and stress motivates people to improve. Too much stress can be a bad thing, but too much stress is relative. Jewish folks have succeeded like any other nation, while living with higher levels of stress than most any nation.

Secretary Madeline Albright on Greta Blog

On FoxNews, Greta had on Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a guest. Greta asked the Secretary for an opinion on the Hezbollah/Israel conflict.


Greta; What will happen if Israel steps over "the line" into Lebanon?
Sec; I think it makes whole situation more dangerous...
Israel is drawn into a conflict which they are not fighting from outside but from the inside. Israle wants very much not to be occupiers any longer, they have learned this from past experience. They [Israel] need to deal with hezbollah as military threat.

Greta; Does stepping over the line into lebanon invite Syria or Iran to play bigger role?
Sec; Well it depends on the spin which comes out of this...
Not every detail is palnned ageah... there could be an accidental bombing into a Syrian area.. so there are unintended consequences and that's the problem... We are at a cross roads time in all of this where this could go in a very bad direction into spreading into a regional conflict... We need to try to get a resolution not allowing Hezbollah to regroup, and allow to feel safe within their own borders.


Greta; UN Resolution 1559 did not disarm hebollah, why should we think another Resolution would work? (Greta/Sec clarified the Sec; was not actually thinking of another UN Resolution, but simply an answer to the problem.)
Sec; I think what needs to happen, this cannot be solved militarily in the long run, we need diplomatic action in the long run... There are a number of diplomats in the region.. I hope very much Secretary Rice takes a larger role in this.. I am sure Sec Rice is in New York right now trying to figure out a more diplomatic method ...
I don't think hezbollah can be disarmed completely with military action.. and I think Israel is just going to get more sucked in...

Greta; What kind of diplomatic solution with hezbollah?
Sec; Well what has to happen, lebanon needs to control it's own territory, Hezbollah needs to be surrounded with international forces of some kind..
and the thing that is so interesting, frankly what is happening in the Middle East
is some of Sunni leaders [Saudi and others] are very critical of Hezbollah, that particular aspect of it needs to be strengthened.. That is something we need to work with...

Greta; will Arab's opinion change if Israel takes too long or take, what would appear to be, excessive force?
Sec; I think that is one of the real dangers here. Some of leaders are critical of Hezbollah, but are people on the street are thinking of Hezbollah.
Israel is in their right to protect themselves... The Katyusha rockets are coming from Hezbollah.. but at what moment does this go in a different direction.. where they seem to be the aggressors and lose their support in Arab Nations?
Like the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Iraq... throughout region this is a billiard table, very dynamic... be carefull this does not spin out of control.


I believe Greta asked the right questions and was relatively hard hitting. I also think the former Secretary did some dancing with the questions. She spent much time just restating facts and not giving her opinion. When the opinion was given I agreed with some.

MoreThanCorn agrees with Sec;
1) Israel has right to defend herself
2) Sunni leaders (governmental and religious) are critical of Hezbollah and the rest of the world needs to work with this...
3) The Middle East is analogous of a billiards table, very dynamic.
4) The "spin" from this could change everything.


MoreThanCorn disagreements with Sec;
1) Military force will not disarm Hezbollah in the long run.
2) Hezbollah needs to be surrounded by international troops
3) Israel could accidentally bomb in a Syrian area?

There is one new point above which I have yet to hear, number 4, Spin playing a role in this defensive action by Israel. Sec Albright impressed me with this. The media's coverage of this could change the direction and outcome. It could assist or desist in the resolving of this conflict with eventual peace or it could draw other nations into the conflict and escalate. The media needs to be extremely ethical and conscious of their reports and pictures. I will not hold my breath.

The disagreements are beyond recognition. The Secretary is absolutely wrong with all three above. I believe she is downplaying the significant role this "offense makes the best defense" method Israel is taking. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with 200+ US soldiers deaths notched in their headboards and 60+ Jews in this conflict alone. The total Jews killed is I am sure in the thousands. These people are not those who would sit down with cup of warm Green Tea and negotiate or voluntarily give up their remaining 12,500 Katyusha rockets, even if the tea has a hint of Jasmine. Hezbollah are terrorist/civilians, as I have heard them defined. Civilians store rockets in their homes and aid and abet Hezbollah even if they do not participate in the conflict themselves. They want Jews exterminated again and it appears revel in the hopes of this coming to pass.

The only time Diplomatic means would assist is for continued work on above "agreement #2, continued critical speech toward Hezbollah. There is where a veteran cheerleader could do some good. The military is there for one reason, insure Israeli security. This is accomplished well (and in the long run) through extermination of terrorists and exploding their rocket caches. The Secretary says, then the Lebanese government can move in troops with possible help from international forces to take back control of Southern Lebanon and encircle remaining Hezbollah terrorists. Did the Secretary not just say military action is also the long term answer? Let us review; Militarily (Israel) weed out terrorists (Hezbollah), then regain control of South Lebanon with a military (Lebanese)?

And how are international (United Nations) troops any better than Israel for taking care of Hezbollah? Would UN troops be ineffective?

I never much liked Secretary Albright.

ABC News, Phoenix "Under Seige" from Sniper

Just got off the phone with a friend in Indianapolis. He said ABC News headlines claim, "Community Under Seige", and then the report said, "...entire city is paralyzed with fear..."

This could not be further from the truth. ABC news is guilty of inflating the story.

I live and work in Phoenix. My employer is just a few blocks from a couple of the shootings. No one here in my office of 80 people have any life-changing fear of the sniper. We are all concerned, but not paralyzed.

Inflated Articles;
July 21 - ABC News

Charles Krauthammer on Israel and Hezbollah

Krauthammer again is brilliant. Read full version below.

The MSM is sending mixed signals in their articles. Fox News, in my opinion, bumbles their article title today, "Arab World Stands Behind Hezbollah". Even when I read the stand alone article I still get the impression governments of Arab nations want Hezbollah out of the equation. They see the terror group as destabilizing. This really is a confusing mess of a region.

If Israel does as Krauthammer hopes, they will due the dirty work and give back the land to Lebanon, free of Hezbollah. Hopefully the "world" will give Israel enough time. The media could help, but I fear they will not.

Lebanon: The Only Exit Strategy

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Page A19

"There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end?

The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.

Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East.

Which parties? Start with the great powers. In September 2004 they passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon.

The resolution enjoyed the sponsorship of the United States and, yes, France. As the former mandatory power in Lebanon, France was important in helping the Lebanese expel Syria during last year's Cedar Revolution, but it understands that Lebanon's independence and security are forfeit so long as Hezbollah -- a lawless, terrorist, private militia answering to Syria and Iran -- occupies south Lebanon as a rogue mini-state.

Then there are the Arabs, beginning with the Lebanese who want Hezbollah out. The majority of Lebanese -- Christian, Druze, Sunni Muslim and secular -- bitterly resent their country's being hijacked by Hezbollah and turned into a war zone. And in the name of what Lebanese interest? Israel evacuated every square inch of Lebanon six years ago.

The other Arabs have spoken, too. In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.

Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.

Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.

But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression.

The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.

It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Persian Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran's choosing.

Just as in Kuwait in 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.

Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?"

No Guns Equal More Crime

In 1995 was priviledged to be at a dinner where Jim Brady (Brady Bill, shot during President Reagan's attempted killing)and his wife were speaking. I remember little about the speech, but days later I read the Brady Bill as it stood never would have kept Jim Brady or Ronald Reagan from being shot. Up to this point I was more or less a gun control advocate. This was a tipping point in my move to pro-gun advocacy.

ToGetRichIsGlorious found an article showing the homicide crime rate in Washington DC as still being one of the fiercest in the US. It is also one of the few cities or towns in the country where guns are completely outlawed.

When I lived in DC in 2001 I remember taking the Metro on the Green line Southeast of town. I believe many of the murders adding up are happening in the neighborhoods near the Anacostia Metro stop. If the nations capital is going to be a "gun free zone" for law-abiding citizens, then they deserve a higher level of protection. It is apparent the criminals are getting and using guns in city where the law says one cannot have a gun. The law only keeps law abiding citizens, who would potentially lower the crime rate by carrying weapons for self-defense. If every criminal or would be murder knew each man over the age of 18 was carrying a weapon, would they not think twice or three times before attempting anything dumb?

This topics was discussed yesterday with a friend. I believe in Revolutionary times every household in some colonies were required to have a weapon. Obviously this was the time of the Minute Men and defense of the colonies against the British, however I doubt there is any way to find out how the related crime rate changed/no change during this time.

A law today stating every household must have a weapon self defense would be seen as horrific. The experts and moms would come out of the wood work pointing to all the accidental shootings to children when guns were at home. They would claim these statistics would rise. If the public was an educated public regarding weapons at home and this was part of our culture, yes I think accidental deaths at home would rise, however relative to the number of households it would not be nearly as significant as the drop in all crimes from breaking and entering, rape, homicide and others. I believe the net effect would be an unarguable savings of human life.

Hezbollah's Choice

Dwarfed and cornered a nation defending
Offensive maneuver, North and South sending
Few other people will fight more resolute
Patience they showed, terror they now refute

A mouse surrounded by dozens of cats
This mouse does not cower under rocket attacks
Centuries of hate for only hates sake
Are Arab’s so blind, their lives are at stake?

Iran supports from the North Hezbelloh
Southern foe tunnels, mimicing tarantula
Springing from hole to kill and to snatch
Soldiers of Israel surprise is no match

International zone between bomb strapped Palestine
A wall was built, the terror Israel confined
The American President, convinced her to return
Ground she held, defending like giant burm

Arafat had said if land was given back
No Israeli would die, due to ball-bearing flack
The promise was denied by Ariel Sharon
He believed any softening, brings death alone

Give up they did, this buffering zone
Back to people, anger and death their tone
Electing Hamas to lead them forward
Nothing to gain through murder as coward

The suicide attackers ran bloody once more
Café coffee and blood splattered to floor
The rockets continue after Israel tried peace
Now their plan is diplomacy with digging teeth

Diplomacy against terror, is talking about talk
No more chances, Jews now walk the walk
It appears there is little the radicals understand
Except real consequences, military’s heavy hand

The world has agreed, Israel has the right
To defend herself, now an 8 day fight
It may continue for weeks, until terror is rid
When Israel will sleep with no missile overhead

Israel is fighting with one hand behind her back
If Iran begins to meddle, it’s audios jack
To avoid a larger war it is not too late
If Tehran keeps quiet, their demise will abate

Which do we want, Tehran as terrorist or free?
Their university students have marched and see
Tehran would have a chance at liberation and votes
We would read more speeches of Natan Sharansky quotes

Sharansky may be Jewish and Tehran’s students Arab
They are too smart to believe theirPresidents vocal scarab
His talk is tough and appears not concerned
But neither was Khadafi, then his house bombed he confirmed

Marching Democracy delivers peace to the world
Text books will show, liberty, freedom in word
There are a few who read history and reflect
They look no further than Reagan I would suspect

Peace through strength was his success
History if repeated, would show the same progress
Our strength has a cost, but conflict we avoid
Enemies will cower, their hate will grow devoid

Israel previously sees the benefits of strength
For years they had force muliplying breadth
Defending herself from a second extermination
By scaring those who would kill with little persuasion

They want Hamas and Hezbollah to see
This is what happens if they are not let be
Military might is their diplomatic discussion
Wrapped up tight in bomb shell explosion

Israel sees, all enemies as no different
Now hesitate not, for unleashing a deterrent
Provoked into position, action was taken
Hezbollah wants to fight, they are gravely mistaken

The choice theirs to release soldiers unmolested
Decimation has come, annihilation will be wretched
Their anticipation of Israel’s weakness mistook
Hezbollah will know peace, after rewriting their playbook

Israel War- Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer's Op-Ed today is a must read. He brings up the historical events of Israel and the past conflicts with Palestinians, Yassar Arafat. Israel is fighting to insure their survival from extermination, again.

*********************************
Why They Fight

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 14, 2006; Page A21

"Next June will mark the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War. For four decades we have been told that the cause of the anger, violence and terror against Israel is its occupation of the territories seized in that war. End the occupation and the "cycle of violence" ceases.

The problem with this claim was that before Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War, every Arab state had rejected Israel's right to exist and declared Israel's pre-1967 borders -- now deemed sacred -- to be nothing more than the armistice lines suspending, and not ending, the 1948-49 war to exterminate Israel

But you don't have to be a historian to understand the intention of Israel's enemies. You only have to read today's newspapers.

Exhibit A: Gaza. Just last September, Israel evacuated Gaza completely. It declared the border between Israel and Gaza an international frontier, renouncing any claim to the territory. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory in history. Yet the Gazans continued the war. They turned Gaza into a base for launching rocket attacks against Israel and for digging tunnels under the border to conduct attacks such as the one that killed two Israeli soldiers on June 25 and yielded a wounded hostage brought back to Gaza. Israeli tanks have now had to return to Gaza to try to rescue the hostage and suppress the rocket fire.

Exhibit B: South Lebanon. Two weeks later, the Lebanese terror organization, Hezbollah, which has representation in the Lebanese parliament and in the cabinet, launched an attack into Israel on Wednesday that resulted in the deaths of eight soldiers and the wounding of two others, who were brought back to Lebanon as hostages.

What's the grievance here? Israel withdrew from Lebanon completely in 2000. It was so scrupulous in making sure that not one square inch of Lebanon was left inadvertently occupied that it asked the United Nations to verify the exact frontier defining Lebanon's southern border and retreated behind it. This "blue line" was approved by the Security Council, which declared that Israel had fully complied with resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Grievance satisfied. Yet what happens? Hezbollah has done to South Lebanon exactly what Hamas has done to Gaza: turned it into a military base and terrorist operations center from which to continue the war against Israel. South Lebanon bristles with Hezbollah's 10,000 Katyusha rockets that put northern Israel under the gun. Fired in the first hours of fighting, just 85 of these killed two Israelis and wounded 120 in Israel's northern towns.

Over the past six years, Hezbollah has launched periodic raids and rocket attacks into Israel. Israeli retaliation has led to the cessation of these provocations -- until the next time convenient for Hezbollah. Wednesday was such a time. One terror base located in fully unoccupied Arab territory (South Lebanon) attacks Israel in support of another terror base in another fully unoccupied Arab territory (Gaza).

Why? Because occupation was a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel. The issue is, and has always been, Israel's existence. That is what is at stake.

It was Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization that convinced the world that the issue was occupation. Yet, through all those years of pretense, Arafat's own group celebrated its annual Fatah Day on the anniversary of its first attack on Israel, the bombing of Israel's National Water Carrier -- on Jan. 1, 1965.

Note: 1965. Two years before the 1967 war. Two years before Gaza and the West Bank fell into Israeli hands. Two years before there were any "occupied territories."

But, again, who needs history? As the Palestinian excuses for continuing their war disappear one by one, the rhetoric is becoming more bold and honest. Just Tuesday, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, writing in The Post, referred to Israel as "a supposedly 'legitimate' state" ["Aggression Under False Pretenses," op-ed, July 11].

He made clear what he wants done with this bastard entity. "Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media," he writes, "the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank." It is about "a wider national conflict" that requires the vindication of "Palestinian national rights."

That, of course, means the right to all of Palestine, with no Jewish state. In the end, the fighting is about "the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967."

In 1967 Israel acquired the "occupied territories." In 1948 Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 -- between Israel and the "genocidal Islamism" (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them -- is about whether that life should and will continue to exist."

Saudi Arabia Support, As Israel Backed into Corner

Whille the battles continue or grow between Israel and Hizbullah, it is important to already read details.

Typical media channels are really stoking the Israel troop movements and IAF bombings in Beirut as all out war and "escallation" of a large magnitude. While I am not there, therefore this all could be accurate, I also am reading between the lines.

The Jerusalem Post has this article which states Saudi Arabia is not taking an on-the-fence position. While they are trying to promote more caution with the Israel military action (which is a fence sitter), they are also coming out and questioning and softly condemning the actions of the guerillas of Hizbullah. The following few paragraphs are in my mind a critical read;

"A Saudi official quoted by the state Saudi Press Agency said the Lebanese Hizbullah's brazen capture of two Israeli soldiers was not legitimate.

The kingdom "clearly announces that there has to be a differentiation between legitimate resistance (to Israel) and uncalculated adventures."

The Saudi official said Hizbullah's actions could lead to "an extremely serious situation which could subject all Arab nations and its achievements to destruction."

"The kingdom sees that it is time for those elements to alone shoulder the full responsibility for this irresponsible behavior and that the burden of ending the crisis falls on them alone."

Saudi Arabia's comments on the crisis came after most moderate Arab governments reacted with relative restraint to Israel's offensive in Lebanon, condemning attacks on civilians and infrastructure but also implicitly criticizing Hizbullah."

With just more than 48 hours since the Israeli shells began arching and bombs began falling, what appears to be a good many of the Arab nations are not only showing restraint but also saying the Hizbullah should be left out to dry. There are on their own with this near-sighted decision of kidnapping Israelis soldiers as bargaining chips. I do not see Hizbullah's attempt at strong arming any less futile than a man standing at the base of the Hoover Dam, striking it with a hammer. Yes damage will be done, but does he understand what is behind those walls. In this case not only is Israel's own restraint part of the dam's wall, but also contributing are other Arab nations.

I pray for a quick end to the fighting, yet I hope Hizbullah will get a clear message.

Phoenix Resident on Serial Rapist and Sniper

Do not believe the ratings-inspired media.

The “Baseline Rapist” and yet to be named 'serial sniper' barely have the attention of many Phoenix residents. I live in Phoenix and I am concerned over what is happening. There is no doubt the media, locally and nationally, have hyped this story to glamorize it and win viewers and ratings.

I have spoken with a dozen friends and coworkers about this in the last 24 hours. More than half did not even know about the rapest or the sniper. The first time they had heard any word about it was when I started the conversation.

My father and mother called last weekend and asked questions and were quite concerned. However they too only know what the MSM has told them. Last night on local Phoenix news, the background music was this sinister elevator-like music while they commentated on a neighborhood meeting with residents and Phoenix Police at Loma Linda Middle School in Phoenix.

The residents who know about what is happening have concern, yet it is apparent there is no mass fear. I live in Phoenix, work in the down town area (near to where some of the murders have taken place) so I have a good bead Phoenix residents.

There is no city wide fear and panic as the MSM is portraying. The city is concerned, but many have not even heard of what is going on with the story. The city of 3 million is large and there is much going on each day. While the feeling of the city could change, it currently is business as usual for most of us.

MIT Professor Calls Global Warming a Scam

Richard S Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT says those promoting global climate change are chasing research funds. Scientists who contest human effect on climate change do not receive funding and their reputations are compromised. There is a "climate" of fear within the atmospheric science community not to contest climate change.

News Busters has an article here.
Cato here.
FirstThings here.
Tom DeWeese here.

Cindy Sheehan's About Face

When reading Bob Park's Black & Right I came accross an recent post with a link to the original Cindy Sheehan. Mrs Sheehan truly looks like a profiteer of her son's death and a flip-flopper.

Terrorists Hate Elections and Blue Jeans

India now has their own deadly day to remember. Joining other countries;

US 9/11/01 -
England 07/07/05 - 52 killed, 700 injured
India 07/11/06 - 137 killed (as of 10:55am Pacific, hundreds injured

According to the AP/FoxNews article; "The force of the blasts ripped doors and windows off carriages, and luggage and debris were strewn about, splattered with blood. Survivors were seen clutching bloody bandages to their heads and faces. Some were able to walk from the station."

These attacks are similar to attacks in England, Spain and Indonesia.

The religions of the US, England, Spain, Indonesia and India are dissimilar. However two adjectives which describe all these areas are;

Democracy
Market Economy

These two are what radical Islam groups disdain, western democracy and the western economy. Why do they hate these? I do not know and it is possible they do not themsleves know.

I am not convinced Islamic extremists first hate people for their religious beliefs. It is possible they hate the "western" culture first and we all just happen to be Christian, Catholic, Jewish, etc...

India is by no means western in their culture as they are 80 or 90 percent Hindu. However their economy is very open and market driven. This is bringing western influences. This is bringing extremist' disdain.

This is why there are Muslims being killed and Mosques being bombed in Iraq. It matters to what religion one is devoted. Anyone can be the enemy if they vote in an election, wear blue jeans or a Reebok t-shirt. If you directly or indirectly support western ideas or culture you are now the enemy.

This is not about who is friends with the United States or who supports or does not support the war in Iraq. This is a war on democratic institutions and market economies (they happen to walk down the street hand-in-hand). The United States is simply the title of the largest democracy with a free market. England, Spain, India fall under our same category. With freedom of choice brings change. Extremists never read "Who Moved My Cheese" and they do not want their countries to morph away from dictatorships and brutal theocracies with little or no human rights and choices for their people.

Many a Christian prayer will be repeated for victims and families in India.

The Hardways

Yesterday in Tempe, AZ went to the Yucca Tap Room at the advice of a friend. The Hardways were a band playing in the evening. They played a short but lively show.

The Absentee View - Liberals and their News

Voice of reason, Absentee, writes a fresh dose of his witty opinion on where and why liberals choose comedians, actors and singers as their news and opinion sources.

Read post "Millions of people .. out there" from June 7, 2006.

Absentee is right on the money, in my opinion. But then, I just adopted my opinion from Absentee? Maybe he is crazy?

Wind and War

Forewarning of change with weather’s arrival
Signals approach for lands wet revival
Potential for destruction in life and home
Allows us to anticipate while outcome unknown

High pressure to low is a tempests desire
Latitude with land contour conspire
Outside force encourages a new path
Mountains will accelerate or shape winds wrath

A movement in mass from place of beginning
Battle with ground, wind often is winning
Environment directs and shows change to wind
Or trees prostrate and the force will rescind

One can anticipate the water will soon reach
Destruction of hill, down stream a new beach
From torrential rains and winds of destruction
The land will heal, new life under construction

Analagous to Weather and Wind, War can make misery
But if evil is punished innocent will reach victory
From origin is begun a march in direction
The end is the goal of evil’s suppression

Honest conclusions followed by an action
A tyrant’s grip would come under traction
Some facts retrospective were convaluded
What is best for a country self-interest included

Claims the war was poor presupposition
Low on the list were eventual peace, liberation
Ill-intentions accused of greed at the top
The tyrant a marked man previous plans to stop

Imperial war neither is honorable nor righteous
Conquest will end when evil is not an axis
Each battle is won by dark army or white
With God’s invocation we may win this gun fight

But war fought by noble man with high power
Who have learned lessons of past failure or desire
Self-righteous it appears, believing God found favor
The moral compass we follow sheds first our anger

Victory declared not when terrorist is dead
Many family and child indoctrined, poisoned head
The war is not only battlefield and street
Ideology can make mind a deep poored concrete

We enter a nation where men had lowered knee
Their past oppression and treatment all could see
Thankful are people for years in the past
America’s mercy built on pity is vast

A doctrine we adopted promoting democracy
America is this ideal’s working foundry
The modern first, many inspired to plant seed
One hundred nations and counting of men freed

Men will die for the slaved and no surprise
Liberation and freedom our safety relies
A war chest is filled because of a need
Soldiers will be shot, on foreign soil will bleed

Our fighting men die, another’s border protect
Sunni, Kurd, Shiite many Arabic in dialect
If we save these people from death by sword
A friend we may have and trust in our word

A country of their own, syncretist and sustaining
Our promotion of Sharansky, democracy attaining
Hope and faith is helping me to see
America does believe, “Let us die to make men free.*”

Rick Monday Saves American Flag 1976

I am a little behind the curve on this story. It was brought back to the attention of the public on Independence Day this year. I was still in mom's incubator when the Dodger's took the field this day...

In 1976 Dodger Rick Monday saved an American Flag from being burned on the field. Listen to Rick's Account at insidebaseball.net

A Tour Audience' Preemptive Strike

For the nth time in recent memory, the Tour De France opens with talks of drug scandals. This year the anty is upped when one day prior to the prologue in England, 17 riders are not allowed to begin the tour, including two favorites Ivan Basso of CSC and Jan Ullrich. It appears the accused riders were pulled by their teams when information by the Spanish Police was handed to the world doping agency governing drug use in professional cycling. At this time the press has labeled everything as "allegations." What this means is some who are accused are either guilty and will be proven so or they will be cleared of any wrong doing (whether guilty or not). The damage to the individuall cyclists career has been damaged through the allegations alone. The Tour is again tarnished.

I am an amateur cyclist and participate in local (USCF) races and watch the Tour each year with religious like conviction. I have an affinity toward and an understanding of the Tour which is not unique inside competitive cycling circles. Training rides with local cyclists is always tough. This is just at an amateur level. The Tour is a once per year reminder for humbleness. It is apparent to me how hard it must be a world class cyclist, racing against others your caliber. What is difficult for most of us to understand is the pressure a professional cyclist is under to not only race well, but to win races.

Many cyclists race for years, working full time, training and racing nearly full time in order to make it onto a competitive team. Once they are on a local team, they can move up to a national team, the next step is an international team. There is a little money in cycling unless you win races consistently and are on a supported (sponsored) team. In order to achieve this level of performance, training mileage is probably 500+ miles per week for many of them. Cyclists sacrifice their social life and their careers in order to pursue racing. Most who take this risk to race as a professional will end their careers and have racing memories to show for it.

Pro cycling may be similar to football, where the quarter back garners most of the attention. In Tour level cycling the "GC" or team captain is nearly the only thing which matters. The supporting riders "domestiques" are simply cannon fodder.

All the other riders are "domestiques". The pressure to perform well as a domestique must also be extreme and in the end you will get little or no recognition. If you are lucky there will be a renewal your contract for next year.

A typical tour rider may have a short biography similar to this;

Jonathan Bender began racing bmx bikes at age 7. Moved into road cycling at age 14 and was winning local criteriums by age 16. Joined a junior development tam at 16 and by age 21 was picked up by a sposored-professional team based on Belgium. Age 23 was recruited to race on team Telephone of France. Currently age 30, rides first Lieutenant for the 27 year old team captain and Tour Champion hopeful Brent Jebeaux.

It is likely Johnathan Bender skipped college to race and may have been working full time through out his cycling career making minimum wage or little more. He probably has little or no social life outside of cycling. He races nearly every week for 30+ weeks a year. Sometimes his team may schedule 3 or 4 events in a week.

Like many who sacrifice so much to participate in what they excel or love, there is pressure to succeed. In comes the pressure to dope.

Team managers or doctors may pressure riders to begin a doping regimen. But other than the athlete, who is more responsible for dictating what can and cannot enter the cyclist's body?

I want to pre-empt the stories of the coming weeks all fueled by pity for the cyclist. "They are forced into doping by the pressure from sponsors." "The professional cyclist is a victim, caught between success in the sport they love and pressures for winning or an expectation.

Let none of us claim to know what pressure they are going through. However I will claim to have a concious and moral compass. I believe all have the same compass. I believe most of not all know whether there were drugs inserted into their bodies and cannot believe for a second any of them were naive to this.

A cyclist caught doping deserves the punishment they will receive. Articles which will speak any other opionion I believe will just be pandering and promoting the self pitty of cheaters.

Insurgent Demands Show Insurgent Dispair

The US troops may have just seen another example of how they are winning the war in Iraq. It takes some critical thinking, but it is a logical conclusion.

CNN posted an article today where 11 insurgent groups in Iraq are asking for a 2 year timeline for US troops to exit Iraq. If this and a list of other requests are met, they would stop their terrorist activities immediately.

According to the article there are probably two dozen insurgent groups working in Iraq today. It is estimated these 11 insurgent groups account for up to 70% of the insurgent numbers in Iraq.

The insurgents are trying to establish a dialogue with the United States. They are interested in negotiating. Since when do people who cut off heads and kill innocents begin to negotiate? As sinister as these people are, they may have some human qualities about them. I believe they realize they are getting beat.

As financial means are cut-off or dry up, when it seems a nearly daily occurrence when 8, 11, 40 insurgents are killed, it becomes clear if the insurgents are fighting a war of attrition they will lose. American and coalition forces are still lost each week, however based on superior armament and plans, this gorilla warfare is still fairing well for the coalition. Deaths are meaningful, yet minimal relative to any past war.

The insurgency are steadily losing their brass. Zarqawi was yet another example of our troops lethality when hunting terrorist killers.

I support a “no-timeline” war on terrorism in Iraq. When receiving news like the insurgents wanting to talk or negotiate, I support increasing the iron fist. Terrorists may only understand strength. If we consistently respond to their showing of strength or weakness with increased military strength, I believe the terrorists will continue to get the hint the US is not going to leave. The only option for the terrorists will be die or give up.

President Reagan understood “Peace through Strength”. So does our President Bush.

Hard Questions for Carl Levin

On Fox and Friends, Brian Kilmeade was in a professional yet heated question/answer session with Senator Carl Levin about troop reductions and when they should start or who should make the call.

I could not get a link, however the title of the video is "Stay the Course?" and is in the "Fox News 24/7" box at FoxNews. Bravo to Brian Kilmeade for his questions and not giving up to get an answer out of Senator Levin. Just so happens, Senator Levin never gave Brian a straight answer. But the good Senator sure knows how to dance.

Not Evil, Angry

It has been a long time coming. Let me be honest, I wanted Ward Churchill to lose his position at CU Boulder since I first read his vommotous words. I knew nothing of his plagiarism at the time. We need to remember how he came to attention.

It was January 2005 when Professor Ward Churchill first made news when he described some who died in the towers on Sept 11, as "Little Eichmann's". This is where it started. You can read a general cronology of major events and statements by others involved at Political Gateway.

Here is FoxNews article.

Michelle Malkin was the only place I could find pics of both Churchill's plagarism of art; "Winter Attack" and "Little Big Man."

A response to the Churchill subject I think is worth reading, author Anthony Lappe.

If you have read enough articles and opinions, including Ward Churchill's interviews and explanations you can make your own conclusions. Maybe Professor Churchill was really just trying to write a philosophy essay? Maybe he was trying to portray himself as an inward looking person. However I just do not believe this explanation. Until I talk to him in person and get a different gut feeling, I would have to say Ward Churchill is maybe evil, definately angry.

The Living Wage Fallacy

Who is living in more squalor, Craig (top photo) or Dave (bottom photo)?

The minimum wage law is again in the news. There is a new term in the country's vernacular, "living wage".

Time Magazine always appears to have a mixed bag of pro-market writers and those against the market. The cover story, India Inc., about India's free market explosion appears pro-market. It is a well written piece which celebrates the newness and energy of the working class and new wealthy citizens of India. The economy is being driven by people who are behind the steering wheel of their own lives. As they are pursuing their own, selfish means, they are actually growing the economy together and fewer are being "left behind."

However their are a couple articles in this week's issue which are not pro-market in any form.

The articles suggests Pittsburgh is an example of the benefits of paying higher wages for low skilled labor. In Pittsburgh it states low income neighborhoods are on the improve, janitor bought home ownership is up 37% in 15 years and there are fewer families living below the poverty line. Time interviewed a janitor in Pittsburgh who has union negotiated wage of over $12.60/hour!

The article does in fact come clean when it cites pro minimum wage ideas are promoted by "liberal-leaning" groups such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Fiscal Policy Institute." These orgs claim by raising minimum wage it will have no effect on the number of jobs available.

"Daniel Radford, who served as executive secretary of the Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council... laments that the standard of living for workers in his hometown has failed to keep pace with that of similar workers in Pittsburgh. "They've got high union density, politicians in their pocket and strong community support... But Cincinnati is completely different. It's a tough town for workers."

MoreThanCorn cheers Cincinnati for being a tough workers market. The tougher the market, the better the workers and the more inspiration for workers to educate, re-educate, start a business or get a second job until they find the better job.

The next paragraph states "Craig Jones knows that firsthand" (Cincy's tough worker market). He lives in Cincinnati and is a janitor. "It is 10pm and he is back home after another four-hour janitorial shift. He microwaves a Stouffer's dinner and grabs a Coke from his cabinet. He has been looking for a better-paying job during his off-hours but hasn't found one, so he is pinning his hopes on the Justice for Janitors campaign. 'I'm not looking for a handout,' he says. 'But I feel like I'm stuck.'"

From one Jones to another, I think Craig is looking for a handout. The photographs of him standing at work with trash bag in hand and him sitting on a mattress at home show a couple things to me. The jersey he is wearing may be $100+. He has watch on his wrist, possibly a gold chain on the neck and atleast a $10 dew rag on his head. It is difficult to tell what kind of brand name jeans he is may be wearing and the broom head is conveniently covering up identification of the shoes. Time magazine photo-shopped the jersey in the front. Why? It does make it more difficult to identify the team, brand and therefore the actual price tag of the jersey.

Craig's last quote "...but I feel like I'm stuck..." shows the his mental position. He has given up. He is age 27 and has no will to succeed. Time states "...so he is pinning his hopes on the Justice for Janitors campaign..." which is a organization of pro-living wage janitors who are trying to organize other janitors into unions. This is pathetic and unAmerican. Craig is waiting for someone else to do something about improving his situation. He only works 5 days a week and 4 hours a day according to the article. Why does he not go get another job for an additional 4 or 5 hours each day. He could double his monthly income.

After college I was working a job making $6.00/hour. I needed more money after working 40 hours so I found a second job delivering subs on a bike. I also did seasonal Christmas work folding t-shirts at local retailer. I worked 55-60 hours a week, but I made enough to cover bills and save a little. This was done until I figured out what I was going to do with my life. I did not want to make $6.00/hour for very long. The low wage and many hours was inspiration for me to make decisions, work smarter and not harder. It forced me to take risks. It was difficult but this process of making something of yourself, by yourself is just a repeat of what has happened millions of times before me.

Lou Dobbs of CNN wrote an article about the nixing an increase in the minimum wage law . He also talks about the "living wage". "Congress stiffs working Americans" He states the minimum wage should be raised because it has not been raised in years. Dobbs sights the Fiscal Policy Institute (TIME pointed out they are a liberal organization) as research supporting his article. Lou Dobbs seems to be a classic example of journalist trying to make an economic argument. He failed in my eyes, however he may be pandering to those who love taxation and social welfare spending.

Uncivil Rights also has a reasonable opinion on "Living Wages." He adds depth to this post by discussing the tierchary effects of artificially raising wages to unskilled workers. The costs of all products would no doubt rise as janitors all over the country demanded more pay.

The picture Time adds to the article for Craig makes him look like he is living in squalor. No furniture and no pictures or posters on the wall as he sits on his futon thinking.

Let's see what a picture is really worth;
Craig's photo above (see top of post), smoking, wishing someone would rescue him.

The second picture is a staged picture showing C. David Jones living in equal squalor as is Craig. The difference is C. David is reading about Minimum Wage Laws in Henry Hazlitt's, Economics In One Lesson. C. David does not make excuses and looks for new success. He is not waiting for anyone to give him a handout or even a break. Not everyone can be like Craig. Someone has to make a lot of money, to be taxed heavily and to pay for other's laziness and then pay the $12/hour a union wants for their janitors.

If Craig gets his $12/hour, he will be more likely to be content emptying trash cans and spraying windex on windows the rest of his life. Yes, someone has to do the work. Low wages for janitors are good for the individual janitor. In the short run they make less money and God forbid they have to work harder or get a second job. When I made $6.00/hour it motivated me to move on and find success. It will inspire us to make tough decisions which often leads to more prosperity.

One should be working hard and raising themself up to a higher paying job. They should not expect or hope for a job's pay to rise to meet their demands. A living wage can be attained through hard work, in whatever form it must take for Craig to succeed.

Craig, if you ever read this, send me your address. I will mail to you copies of two books I use for inspiration for my own successes;

Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
Young Millionaires, Forbes Magazine

Response from Professor Wycliff of Notre Dame

My email:
(June 22) "Please confirm the facts which O'Reilly is claiming.
Thank you
C Dave Jones
MoreThanCorn.blogspot"


Professor Wycliff response:
(June 23) "Thanks for writing.....dw"


No Mr Wycliff, thank you for clearing this up for me.

Notre Dame's Don Wycliff, Canceled spot on O'Reilly?

On Bill O'Reilly;


Don Wycliff, Professor at Notre Dame in Media, wrote in the Chicago Tribune June 22, 2006 editorial, ...but if you put the blame where it really belongs (for the death of Menchaca and Tucker), you (O'Reilly) have to say bad things about some people for whom you have been a cheerleader. It's ok, Bill. Nobody who cares about the truth takes you seriously anyway."

Per O'Reilly on his show, states Wycliff agreed to come on the show and then canceled one hour prior to airing. O'Reilly advised Wycliff to not make personal attacks and then refuse to defend them, "Cowardice is not becoming."

Is this true Mr. Wycliff?

"500 WMD Munitions, Not Stockpiles"

I remember reading about 12 munitions filled with Sarin gas which had been found in Iraq just after American troops arrived. If I remember correctly the delivery systems were found to have a stamp of a French company.

Listening to Hugh Hewitt this evening on the way home from work and dinner I heard the last segment of an interview with (R) Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. I learnt there had been found approximately 500 total munitions thus far since 2003 and more were likely to be found. Read the information released thus far on Rick Santorum's website.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

While this information appears to me as critical, I am anticipating the arguments now of their legitamcy. Two possible arguments;
1) "This information and the declassified report has been cooked up by the Bush Administration. It is awfully coincidental as President Bush's pole numbers have sunk to recent lows, he now brings this information out to prop himself up."
2) Yet the most anticipated argument is: "500 munitions is by no means "stock piles".
I anticipate Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi or Edward Kennedy to chant this fight song.

My argument is this; "How do you define weapons of mass destruction." How few or many munitions are needed to a nation to officially contain WMD? When the 12 munitions of Sarin gas was found in 2003, I agreed this was by no means stock piles of Sarin gas. But is it still not a WMD munition?

I argued with a friend over the definition of WMD. We discussed the definition of WMD and we agreed a quality definition for your everyday American may be; A weapon of non-conventional (gases, nuclear) means which has the ability to cause mass casualties. We then further defined mass casualties. It took some deal making but we agreed, if in one episode or instant, 1000+ people were killed by a non-conventional weapon, then this could be considered WMD.

Neither one of us knew whether one Sarin filled munition could kill 1000 people, however my gut feeling is it could. At minimum the use of 10 or 12 Sarin filled munitions in one attack would most definately meet the definition of the use of WMD.

Now apparently 500 have been found. Could any reasonable person still say, "there was no threat from Saddam... there were no WMD?" We shall see.

If the Democrats continue to circle the wagons around the "Bush lied, people died" camp. They will be slaughtered in the next elections and beyond.

Donations Increase in 2005

Stephanie Strom from the New York Times wrote the article and I picked it up from the Arizona Republic. "Disasters fueled increase in 2005 donations, report says". Using the NYT search engine I was not able to find the article's link even though it was just published today. So I will type pieces without losing Mrs Strom's message:

"Charitable giving increased last year, propelled by a series of natural disasters hat home and abroad...

Individuals and institutions gave away an estimate $260.28 billion in 2005, a 2.7 percent increase on an inflation adjusted basis over the prior year." This date was collected American Association of Fundraising Counsel and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

"From December 2004- October 2005 an estimate $7.37 billion was donated to address the ravages of natural disasters.

Without disaster-related philanthropy, however, giving would have been flat. The stock market increased only moderately last year, and personal incomes fell for the second year in a row."

Richard Jolly, chairman of Giving USA stated "Instead, people gave over and above what we expected in response to the disasters.

The trend was echoed among corporations, whose giving jumped 18.5 perent, adjusted for inflation, to $13.77 billion. Many companies enjoyed record profits last year, which they shared with disaster victims and relief groups."

This should have been front page news if the NYT or the Arizona Republic wanted to be fair. As much corporation bashing and American-European comparing as I read from both papers, this shows Corporate America and Joe American are record setting givers.

I do not believe incomes went down for the second year in a row. My income went up. So did everyone I know whom I have asked. Increase in income (with consideration of inflation) is at 100% representation among my peers. And I work in tight-belted insurance.

I Surely Agree

After the reading of the column by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne “A Shift Among the Evangelicals”, I had concerns over his ascertations.

Below in italicized-bold are important segments of the column;
“Mr Dionne suggests, ‘The mellowing of evangelical Christianity may well be the big American religious story of this decade.’”

But Page's upset victory could be very significant, both to the nation's religious life and to politics. He defeated candidates supported by the convention's staunchly conservative establishment, which has dominated the organization since the mid-1980s. His triumph is one of many signs that new breezes are blowing through the broader evangelical Christian world…. "I believe in the word of God," Page said. "I'm just not mad about it.”

The evangelical world is going through a quiet evolution as believers reflect on the perils of partisanship and ideology and their reasons for being Christian. This will probably affect the nation's political life, but it will certainly affect the country's spiritual direction. My hunch is that not only moderates and liberals but also many solid conservatives welcome the departure.
Mr Dionne’s writes, “But the evangelical political agenda is broadening as new voices insist on the urgency of issues such as Third World poverty and the fights against AIDS and human trafficking.”

I have not attended church every Sunday for last few years, and am not a church-hopping person. However I have attended numerous Lutheran, Baptist and Catholic churches in the last 10 years due to travel or with Catholic roomates. Like their diverse membership, the Lutheran and Catholic churches across the country do have dissimilar practices. The messages stressed within the service and sermon, are sometimes disparate. The sacraments (communion) is not consistent in meaning and this lack of consistency has been an ongoing debate since before Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenburg, Germany. However there has been a number of consistent messages among all denominations. This consistency is the promotion of charity.

Growing up in Indianapolis my family attended Trinity Lutheran on 16th Street. In an average East side neighborhood in the 80’s and 90’s, I remember the 70+ year old pastor, the late Walter C. Maas standing in the pulpit and teaching us the importance of tithing and charity. Before going to college I remember attending a service at Trinity with the current minister, Pastor John Herfurth. Pastor Herfurth came to the church in the early 1990’s and also touted the benefits and economic efficiencies of the charities for which our church approved.

Pastor Maas had called Trinity his home church for better than 40 years and Pastor Herfurth was not yet himself 40 years old. Maas was without a doubt the old school Lutheran pastor. He preached at the same church for nearly his entire pastoral career. Pastor Herfurth was young and an excitable pastor. Different “school” however in the 40 years separating their schooling at the seminary, it was apparent the core was consistent. Tithing and charity, concern for the “down-trodden” was among the core. Frankly, the phrase “others less fortunate” was so often a topic of discussion at church, this phrase is a bite of sound which I find myself repeating to this day.

Trinity was not the only church with concern for others less fortunate. Just 2 weeks ago, when attending Mountain View Lutheran Church in Ahwatukee, Arizona, the children’s message was about non-other than tithing. The sermon, hungry and poor folks in Africa and and a segway into a video presentation at the end of the service. The Mountain View endorsed charity, Compassion International, was an adoptive program to feed, clothe, educate and buy a bible for a young person. There were about 100 children who needed sponsors.

After finding a child to adopt, I stepped away from the table displaying the other children. I looked at the line of people. Wealthy Christians stood impatiently in line, eagerly waiting their turn to read the biographies and pick a child to support.
I have seen this same spirit for at least the last 20 years. I am confident the church has been consistent in this for decades before.

However the picture Mr Dionne paints of an average "Evangelical" is not like the above desciption. From a reasonable conservative and Christian, I do not know who he writes about? Maybe Baptists are more “angry” than Lutherans. The answer could just as easily be maybe not. I am not naïve to think there are some churches and individuals who may fit the Mr Dionne column, I just do not know any of them. As for the “mellowing” of the evangelicals. No, I disagree. I surely agree if Mr Dionne had used “watered down”, regarding the endangered story of faith and the “good news”. I honestly hear fewer “John 3:16” messages than I used to hear. This is what is alarming and the decades biggest story. Maybe I will ask 7 year old Deric Wahome of Kenya what he thinks of Evangelicals and this salvation stuff.

Isaac Schrodinger's Response, "Pic of Zarqawi..."

Read the June 10th post: "Pic of Dead Zarqawi, Against Muslim Religion?"
Below is Isaac Schrodginer's response date June 11.


« If It's Good, It's Haraam | Main | Natural Murderers »
Saturday, June 10, 2006

Here goes: I had always been nervous of going out and taking photos in Saudi Arabia. Why? From what I knew, that activity was not appreciated. Whether it was illegal or not, I didn't try to find out.
I have read various Pakistani publications in which it was repeatedly said that photography of any life is haraam. Of course, reality kicks in when people need photos for passports and IDs. Also, photos of the king and other top members of the Saudi royal family are displayed in the airports and photo shops in the kingdom.
However, if one has to be honest about Islamic rulings, then taking photos of men, women, and animals is strictly forbidden.
Here's the "logic" from Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
A devoted reader of the Mufti asks:
Dear Respected Mufti, Assalamu'alaikum, My husband and I have stopped taking pictures since reading your fatwa that it is impermissable. We still have pictures in albums that we took a long time ago -- Must we throw these out,...
The Mufti responds:
These pictures should be destroyed.
So, showcasing pictures of Zarqawi (or any other animal) is not permitted by Islam. One wonders why Saudi Arabia doesn't have a movie industry.
Oddly enough, in my previous post, I linked to a piece in which a "fake but accurate" and pesky Muslim notes:
After dinner, Suhaila and Mary clean up the dishes in the kitchen. Suhaila notices that Mary has random photos of Mo, family, and herself on the refrigerator held up with magnets that depict forest animals. Suhaila thinks posting pictures and anything with images representing life is haraam.
There you go. Under Islamic law, this innocuous website would be banned.

Zarqawi's Death & Long Term War on Terror

I don't know about the long-term benefits of Zarqawi's death? It is reasonably arguable either way and none of us really know.

Here is my opinion; Place yourself as a member of a group peaceful OR criminal. Whether for justified reasons or not, if your President or Vice Pres had a bomb dropped on his head or a bullet went through his head. Later would heard it was a foreign nation's military or maybe the mob. Either way, does it not become apparent to you and your associates "someone wants to shut us up". This undoubtedly has an negative effect on group dynamics does it not?

Of the members in any group there are always those who would do anything for the cause, some on the fence and those who are on the way out the door. Adding the death of a member, let alone the leader, would likely embolden some and recruit through martyrdom, however it is just as likely for the "fencers" to call it quits and others who would be no-shows on their start day of Al Queda Training Academy.

Maybe it is a wash... But I would like to believe it is a net gain for the good guys. Murder rates in countries with capital punishment are typically low. The best example are Muslim nations.

Pic of Dead Zarqawi, Against Muslim Faith?

Many Muslims have said their religion is one of peace. I believe this and I believe the vast majority of Muslims are pieceful people. There is a large minority of Muslims who show us they feel otherwise when they support or participate in the violence seen in Iraq and coffee shop bomings in Tel Aviv.

Shortly after the death of Zarqawi was announced, it was said the posting the picture of Zarqawi's corpse on the news and around the globe was against the Muslim religion.

The backlash of this did not build much past a dull roar and here is possibly why;

No one disputes Zarqawi personally is responsible directly for extinguishing of 1000+ lives. He personally beheaded a few innocents for a video. Zarqawi is also seen in some video plannning the next strategy with his lieutenants, obviously for maximizing Iraqi citizen and US soldier casualties. Then there are pictures and video of him praying. Because the Muslim religion is one of piece I argue Zarqawi is not Muslim but just your run-of-the-mill religious extremist, justifying his bloody actions in the name of other peoples Allah.

With text and statistics http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm from In the United States when the abortion clinic protests turned violent, especially in the middle 1990's there was a small, loud and media grabbing minority of "anti-abortion" radicals. The name anti-abortion may have grown from the large majority of "pro-life" folks who wanted to establish a definitive line between the two groups. The anti-abortionists resorted to obstruction through violence and murder, the pro-lifers also believe abortion was wrong, however their protests amounted to vocal condemnation and candle light vigils.

I will make the statement I believe a larger percentage of the pro-lifers in the US are Christian or believe in those values. Pro-lifers were peaceful people at the protests due to their moral guide, Jesus. Anti-abortionists may have invoked scripture or Jesus name in their defensive of their crimes and murder of clinic doctors. As a pro-life individual I would support the notion these anti-abortionists are not Christians at all. I don't know what they are and it is not relevant, just not Christian.

In this same argument I say Zarqawi as he stated "Allah is great" as he began cutting the neck of a fellow Muslim is not himself Muslim. 9 out of 10 Muslims I think or at least hope would agree. Therefore the displaying of Zarqawi's picture does not break any rules of the Muslim faith.

I will request the opinion of Isaac Shrodinger at isaacshrodinger.typepad.com, a former muslim.

Adult Stem Cells and Lupus

Chip Bennet found an article about treatment of Lupus with adult stem cells. See his June 6, 2006 post at www.chipbennet.net.

Bill Clinton Secretary General, Hillary President?

The is a growing buzz for who will replace Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General. Former President Bill Clinton has been mentioned as a possible candidate. Regardless of how one feels about him as a person or how he was as a President, for this issue let us turn our attention to a few ripples away from where the pebble strikes the pond. Look at effects of his entering this position.

The political strategists may be frothing at the mouth over this one, however I believe it is a simple If/Then statement: If Bill Clinton becomes UN Secretary General, then Hillary Clinton will not be President in 2008, 2012 or ever. Bill Clinton has denied he is searching for the post and according to the sometimes politically biased Wikpedia, the Secretary General position rotats amoung the 6 continentall regions. There has yet to be a North American and Oceania (Phillipines, New Guinea, Thialand, etc) UN Secretary General.

No reasonable person would simultaneously approve of a Hillary Clinton President of the US and Hill Clinton Secretary General of the UN. However, a reasonable political strategy would be Bill Clinton as Secretary General beginning 2007, serves just 1 year of his 5 year term and steps down as Hillary runs/is elected President starting January 2009.

The candidates for Secretary General are vetted and nominated by the Security Council. The UN body votes on the candidates to decide who is to become Secretary General. For matters of what appear to be balancing of power, the Secretary General post is not typically filled by a person who is a citizen of a Security Council member. Typically lesser powered countries have a representative filling the post. This makes it all the less likely the US willl have a Secretary General. It would more than likely be a Mexican, Canadian or Greenlander, or figure from a Central American country.

God References in Great American Speeches

June 6, 1944, D-Day: Dwight Eisenhower - Speech to the Troops fighting Nazi Germany

Supreme Headquarters

Allied Expeditionary Forces
Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces:
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!
Good luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Marriage Amendment

As reasonable as one tries to be, sometimes it takes just one person to change a mind. Changing my mind in the time it took me to read a column is not something I allow myself to often do. However, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post did change my mind, in about 3 minutes time.

"A Ban We Don't (Yet) Need" discusses the ban of gay marriage. I am no longer for changing the US Constitution by adding an amendment for this.

Haditha - Too Little Information

Based solely on what the media is reporting about Haditha, if the soldiers involved in the now imfamous Haditha incident were to go on trial today, no one would be court marshalled. There are no damning facts as of yet.

Read the Haditha article from Hawaii Press.

Fear and Jealousy - Reasons To Not Like US

When I do not have an answer to a question I often will start with what Charles Krauthammer's discussion on a topic. In today's column, Mr. Krauthammer suggests Tehran is about to crack knowing economic sanctions are upon them.

I agree economic sanctions are feared, for reasons Mr. Krauthammer sights, as their shaky reign due to the folks in Iran feel the mullah's control of the country is not best for them. There have been protests in the recent past from namely Iranian students for a revolution.

Mr Krauthammer also says military action would be feared much more than economic sanctions. And why would it not?

If Iran is sweating over the idea the EU, UN or most importantly the US is serious about them not having nuclear capability on any level, this fear comes primarily from the fear of US decision making. Those who cheer loudly for their disdain for the US may or may not have a credible reason for their hatred. They may President Bush for equally as justifiable/unjustified reasons. President Bush has made a name for himself in the international community. He does what he says he is going to do. President Bush is not afraid to make decisions whether they turn out as planned or otherwise. Quoting Charles Krauthammer said, "Mark my words." Unilateralism in the face of arguable complacency may be reason to hate President Bush, but I think it is fear from Iran and jealousy from the EU.

Senate Passes Boarder Wall

It was a great day for this country, the Senate passed a border wall bill for 370 miles of triple fence. It passed by more than a 5 to 1 ratio.

Dick Durban from New York said the wall would just hurt relations with Mexico. With this comment I believe he is pandering to a small group of his constituents or possibly just trying to look strong for them, when he has no ideas of his own.

I caught the middle to end of an interview yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's evening radio show... an individual who was being interviewed explained a 3 layer wall would consist of a combination of actual wall structure, long ditches (anti-vehicle crossing) and digital equipment for surveillance.

This individual stated there is not a need for a 2000 mile wall from California to Texas due to many parts of the southern US/Mexico border have geographic barriers such as the Rio Grande River and cliffs which in some places in Texas grow 200 feet just inside the US. Crossing at these points is nearly impossible for an illegal alien, therefore would rarely be attempted. The actual triple fence would be constructed inside and on the flanks of metro areas of border towns.

Three cheers for the Senate and the President!

Time Magazine and Image Picking

Time Magazine published there 100 most influential people in the May 8, 2006 issue. Perhaps this not the first year Time has used other influential people to write about Time's chosen 100 influentials. An example is Laura Bush wrote the piece on the first Female President in Africa, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Condoleeza Rice wrote in for Oprah Winfrey, and on the page previous to Oprah was Justice O'Connor on Chief Justice Roberts. I found most of the segments inspiring and not just a few paragraphs of canned ungenious.

One long critique of the May 8, 2005 issue;
George W Bush was front and center, covering the first two pages. James Carney was chosen to write on the President. Was his assessment balanced? A stretched... yes. The first 2/3 was a list of issues the President has handled. Mr Carney feels on all the issues he listed the president has mishandled. MoreThancorn could have written an article with similar content and painted a much different picture of the president. All the issues listed can be argued as current failures, successes or maybe there has not yet been enough time to decide.... these are truly up for debate. In order on page 52; "Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the CIA leak investigation, the Dubai Ports deal, a bulging deficit and above all Iraq. An invasion the President sold as vital to national security is now seen by most Americans as a war of choice-and a bad choice."

The photo of the President is large and black and white. It shows detail which would have been lost in a color photo.

It is a face of a be-wildered President Bush. His photo shows up earlier on the cover, page 22, 31, and twice in the center fold. Bono comes close with possibly 4 pictures in this issue.

An observation could be made for marketing an image for which pictures are chosen to represent people in their articles. For the President capturing him in a whince, a sigh, upset or surprised would always project one image of the President.

Add the above pictures to an arguably negative article and you come away from reading the magazine with an awful feeling about our country and President.

If pictures of the president saluting troops in Iraq, shaking hands with the crowd, dinner with Mrs Bush, or a meeting with his friend Tony Blair were chosen, different image and feeling would have been invoked.

Compare these with three descenters of the president;

Hillary Clinton's segment. The picture, also black and white, softening the lines of a beautiful smile, showing calm and class.

This picture potrays what I see as expressions and emotions which are not often seen with the Senator from New York. The picture of a powerful Hillary Clinton is not donning the angry face I seen on C-Span. A face of condescending impatience, sometimes lightly filtered anger. The article about Senator Clinton was fare and right on the mark. Balanced, giving credit to her where credit is due; powerful due to her married name and a contender in 2008.

Al Gore is also an angry figure, with yelling and accusation filled speeches against the President. (Yelling) "He played on our fears!" Remembering a speech he gave about Iraq in which he was screaming.

He is being shown with a grin ear to ear. A greying and growing-wiser former Vice President. The article is everything one could hope; complimentary, endorsing, inspiring, bigger than himself "And in the meantime, Gore has decided, there's a planet to save" [global warming]. It appears the author of this article, Karen Tumulty, is not hiding her agenda.

Another glaring difference in image is of Hugo Chavez and his article written by a Tim Padgett... The artist draws a rendition of a Hugo rant, some weeks lasting 6-hours. The picture portrays power, aggression and anger to be respected. The article contains: "The rise of Venezuela's left wing President Hugo Chavez is a lesson in what can happen when the US disses an entire continent. After 9/11 when most Latin American nations refused to endorse the US invasion of Iraq, President Bush testily turned his back on the region....I sting those who rattle me."

A poor image was painted of the president with suttle picture choice. While those opposed to President Bush received flattoring pictures for their articles. It is my opinion the above pictures bring into question the objectivity of the Time editor.

It appears I have written about 2/3 of my post as negative this Time issue. Because it is not yet a balanced post, I will admit enjoyment in reading Time and would consider buying another issue in the future.

If there is another "got milk?" advertisement with Elizabeth Hurley, I will consider a subscription. Who's thirsty?