Dems Pull Out Of Debate?

Well, it appears that the Nevada State Democratic Party has pulled out of a debate scheduled for August 14, apparently because FOX News was hosting it.

The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to Democratic insiders.

The debate was being hosted by Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio, the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project.

At some point the Democrats will need to realize that in order to win this election, it will require them to participate in something other than a softball Q&A period. FOX News may not be to their liking. But they are going to have to consider some things and one of them is: Not only do conservatives watch it, independents do too. These are the people they must win over, not their base.

Just winning your base does not guarantee a victory and the sooner the Dems can learn to believe this, the better for them. There is a whole host of independents that a candidate must convince to vote for him/her, and this move gives the distinct impression that the Dems are not up to facing the tough questions.

Like it or not, one only needs to look at the weekly ratings of FOX News to know for a certainty, they are major players in the media these days. Politics is a discipline that is about numbers and FOX beats the competition combined. But MoveOn.Org and the Daily Kos both want to flex their muscles a bit and demonstrate they own the Democratic Party, because they despise the network they have little influence over. For the Dems to allow them to hold a political institution hostage can, and likely will, alienate more voters than they attract.

This may very well backfire and may not hold up. But if it does hold up, there will be political casualties and damage. It will come with a cost. It may not happen immediately, but this will be an issue in the general election that will not go away. They will have to deal with FOX at some point in the process, if they hope to have a chance.

State Of Affairs: Guiliani And The Right

We have covered what may be the first of the political hits on Obama, presented in the last installment of this series. And again, if you haven't read the first post that inspired all of this, you can read it here. In the interest of fairness, we have to look at the GOP side of this issue; because the Dems do not have a lock on dirty tricks committees seeking out allegations of corruption, for political advantage.

Take Rudy Guiliani for instance. GMA did a hit on him and the NY Daily News ran with it, in this article.

Rudy Giuliani's son seems to think his dad would make a better President than he did a father.

"I got my values from my mother," 21-year-old Andrew Giuliani told ABC in an interview quoted on "Good Morning America" yesterday, the same day the Daily News spotlighted the rift between the former mayor and his only son.

He's running, we all know it. But he hasn't formally announced, yet. Therefore, there hasn't been a lot coming out of the Guiliani camp to date from a policy standpoint. But that doesn't stop the ultra-conservative forces from pouncing on him, as he widens his lead in the polls. Because of this early silence, they attack the only negative they can at this moment, his family life.

I have to say that Rudy's personal life is not a model of perfection, or anywhere close to it. I can also say that in the past, he handled his private life, in a very public way, and did it very poorly. I will not side with him on the way he handled it. But likewise, I will not make it an issue because it is not (in any way) relevant to the issues of the day.

But that isn't stopping his critics, both left and right. Both sides are mounting up a charge against a rising Rudy, especially the right wing of the GOP. His pro-gay and abortion rights stances are going to cause him trouble with evangelicals, I would not be surprised if they mount a "morality" campaign against him, before it's all said and done. Some on the far right are even calling for writing in James Dobson for President (note that this blog entry was written in 2005).

A recent poll (which is questionable) conducted by the Gallop Organization shows that Senator John McCain, and former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani are favored above Hillary Clinton or Senator John Kerry to win the presidency. Well, since all three of these possible presidential candidates have major flaws on issues that I hold dear — I guess I'll write in James Dobson. At least he focuses on the family.

While Giuliani appears to be the most popular of the three — his pro-choice stance is going to alienate the Christian voters causing a "madder" than an ole' wet hen uprising. And Senator McCain can't be trusted to keep his word from day to day. Besides, he might be concentrating more on his movie career these days.

It's still early, but as the GOP field becomes better formed and defined, I believe that the far-right is going to push the family values agenda harder, as they always do. As things get more heated up in the coming weeks and months, the possibility of dirty tactics between the proxy fighters will increase greatly, as well.

The GOP is going to have to look closely at the uphill battle of making a pro-choice candidate viable in the 2008 election. The last thing they want to do, is to create a situation where Christians get angry and stay home "bypassing" voting altogether.

This will be their big threat, Christians staying home on Election Day. If they cannot have their way, they will take their ball and go home. Political blackmail is what I call it. But will it work? I am not so sure. If the far-right decides to play this game, it may find itself with a fractured party. And in turn, it may lead to a Democratic victory.

But more than that, Rudy is already leading in the polls without their support, he may not need it to get the nomination. But the challenge will then be to get enough moderate votes in November, so that not having the evangelical support will be no great loss. That will make it tougher, for sure. But either way, the evangelicals will lose.

If they choose to stay home and Rudy gets elected anyway, they will have no clout with him. He will owe them nothing, therefore, their influence will certainly shrink. If they stay home and a Democrat wins, they will have no pull or any chance of getting it, whatsoever. All in all, the religious right will be forced to go along with the program or face the music.

But until that time, we may see some attacks on Giuliani, both implicit and explicit. Time will tell, just how far they will be willing to go. Going after his family life though, can and will ultimately backfire in the end.

State Of Affairs: Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama

Note - If you haven't read my previous post State Of Affairs: The American Republic, please do so before you read this one. It is directly tied to this post and is a pre-requisite to understanding just where I am coming from here .

Barack Obama is being touted as the fresh-faced outsider, not yet corrupted by Washington and its unsavory ways. Being the "squeaky clean" new guy in town has been one major advantage he has had over and above Hillary. He's been a Senator all of two years now, too soon for him to be corrupted, right?

There's allegations of a new scandal looming on the horizon alright, but it's not a Washington insider making news this time. Read this article from the NYT and see what you think.

Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

Sure, we all must keep in mind that these are allegations, nothing has been proven. But it's an election year and by announcing his candidacy for President of the United States of America, he has willfully consented to the close examination of his all of his past dealings.

Today, the media has released some of its findings. And today, there may be some reason to believe that in this present day, one need not be in power very long before things begin to come to light.

Again, nothing has been proven. Even if it was, this is no different than others that have been down this same path after being elected to a major office. And, already there has been an attempt at an explanation:

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.

The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.

Is it just me, or is there a lot of "not knowing what's going on with your own money" excuses creeping up in the face of serious allegations, these days? (SEE: Harry Reid)

In light of these allegations, the first thing that Democrats will feel the need to do in order to defend of this kind of thing is, claiming a right-wing hit job. But as we can plainly see, the reporting source on this one is not World Net Daily, not Fox News, or some irresponsible GOP blogger; but it is in fact, the good old New York Times (which is not exactly your typical right wing publication).

This is where Hillary comes into this equation.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the NYT is a Hillary newspaper. Sure, they love to break a story as much as anyone. But, rarely do you see much criticism of Sen, Clinton come from them, when she is the topic of conversation - the talk of the town. Democrats are going to claim that the GOP is responsible for digging up this dirt, you can count on that much. But if we think about it a little, what sense would that make?

One of the key principles of smart and sound campaign strategy is:

If you get information that could be used to the detriment of the opposing party, you do not come out with it, until the general election. You let the various other candidates that oppose each other in the other party, dig up their own dirt. This is why I highly suspect that Hillary's camp is responsible for this story, covered by the biggest paper in the state she conveniently represents.

Be that as it may, just as we can't rule this in (as gospel), we cannot rule it out either. But make no mistake here, something somewhere, sparked an interest in someone. And that someone tipped off a newspaper, by planting a seed of doubt and suspicion.

Please, allow me to say that despite the fact Obama is a hard liberal, I actually was beginning to like him and respect him for being such a relatively, ethically clean politician. I wouldn't vote for him, because there is too much of an ideological difference of opinion between us, probably in 95-99% of the pressing issues. But that doesn't mean he couldn't earn my respect, as a human being. I was starting to see the Democratic version of Richard Lugar, who despite many years in DC, is one the cleanest of the very great few that can even be counted, as such. But now, I have to reserve judgment until more can be learned.

One more time, these are allegations. They name no sources or offer any solid support for their accusations. But I do not mind saying, this doesn't look good for Mr. Obama, right now. Just as he is whittling away at Hillary's lead, here comes this. It's too ironic and certainly no coincidence that this would happen, at this point in the pre-campaign era. These kinds of tactics are necessary to win anything of any political significance, these days. This has become the norm.

If it is a hit job by the Hillary Army, Obama will need to fire back or he'll lose ground. If this keeps up, he'll lose what he has fought so hard to gain. What all this means is, our campaigns are battles of negatives, not positives. They do not produce debates on ideas, they force candidates to defend allegations.

Instead of competing to win the battle for ideology, they have "dirty tricks" committees looking for ways to sabotage the other guy and put him on his heels. And to top it off? Most of it is done by proxy, because the same-party, primary rivals may one day have to kiss and make up.

By my standards, this is a real sad "state of affairs" that we have here. This is especially true when the vast majority of those that get to this level are guilty of some impropriety of some kind (or another), or else they would not get to this level at all.

State Of Affairs: The American Republic

Before I get into the meat of this post, I want to stress that this is not a partisan post. This is not a Democratic thing, nor is it a Republican thing. It is an American thing.

As I look back at the various presidencies that I have witnessed in my lifetime, I have noticed a commonality that is worthy of some commentary here. It seems that all of the presidents that have been re-elected to a second term (in my lifetime) have faced a mounted campaign by the opposition to drag the sitting president into the gutter, during the second term. All except for those that didn't get the second term, that is.

For a brief synopsis of this, read this article from the NYT. (It's a bit dated, but illustrates much of what I am trying to say here.)

At a glance, it would appear this nation (that has influenced so many over the last two centuries) has seemingly developed some flaws along the way. In all of the history of democratic republics, there have been stumbling blocks along the way. Rome, ancient Greece, were models of democracy at some points in their history, at least in the time of their highest grandeur. But they too had flaws. If they hadn't, they would still be in existence in their original forms today.

But, as flawed as a democratic republic can be at times, the alternatives of absolutism and/or anarchy are not viable options to ensure that the individuals of a given society are as free from repression, as humanly possible. Monarch or emperor worship does not allow for freedom, any more than does the anarchist view of "every man for himself" does. So, here we sit with a system that is imperfect and often leases itself to abuse and mismanagement.

But that does not mean that we should accept anything, just because whatever that anything may be, is better than its alternatives. One must look to improve the system, not tear it down further. By tearing it down, it weakens. And if it is weakened by the people that comprise it, it can possibly set the stage for one of those alternatives that we do not want to think about, to come into play. (The Weimar Republic comes to mind here.)

A republic, if you can keep it is a phrase often quoted by many, said by Ben Franklin. It appears every so often during the course of op-ed pieces, essays, and other forms of expository writings. But do we really know what he meant, when he said it?

If we look at all the forms of government that has existed before and after that time, we see there are many. Not all have had the people's best interests at heart, not all have served the people well. Just look at the Soviet Union under Stalin, France under Napoleon, and Germany under Hitler (just to name a few). All gave the people an illusion. Are today's governments any different?

In the history of the U.S., there have been many internal movements for equality. The women's movement, racial equality, gay rights, all were noble movements in their day, all had a place in American society. All were needed and still are, but only to a smaller extent than the leaderships of these various movements today would have us believe. Why do I say this?

One thing I have noticed in all of my ponderings about mankind, is this. Once fairness and equality is achieved in anything, the goal then becomes empowerment. If we look at freedom from a sensible standpoint, we see those that truly want to do the right thing; but once that thing is done, they turn greedy and want more. They seek to extend their influence into other areas and seek more power, as if it were some kind of drug. So it is with politics, as well.

Many politicians start out with the idea that they are going to reform the system for the people. That's the platform they campaign on, that's what they get elected on. Once in power, they may try at first. But they all soon come to a stark realization that the system is set up for corruption. Lobbyists, special interests, and the likes are the real driving forces that govern, not the people that sent them there in the first place. This attitude and philosophy knows no party lines, knows no political ideologies. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, or whatever, all are part of that same system. All want power. All will abuse that power in some way, in order to keep that power.

Sure, the party that has been out of power will always paint a rosy picture of what they will do, if only we give them a chance. When there is a generalized malaise caused by the party that is in power or some outrageous scandal that makes the people indignant and angry, the opposition is always ready to cash in. They will promise a change, they will promise anything. But once in power, they forget their promises. Then, it soon becomes more of the same, only with different faces and names (and different special interests).

After years of Democratic rule in the Congress, we saw the erosion of principles. The Jim Wright and the Dan Rostenkowski affairs were but a sliver of the corruption that took place over that time period. Then along came the GOP's Contract With America and the promises that came with it. One particular promise still comes to mind when I think about it is, term limits. Did term limits get implemented? Not as of this writing, nor is it likely to. Why? Because the only thing that supersedes the desire for power is, the desire to keep it.

Today, we see a new era of Democratic control, one that promised us the moon, the stars, and the sun in order to get into power. Do we have hope, now that the corrupt Republicans have been voted out of power? I can't say that we do. Again, we have new faces, new names, new special interests, but none of them are in this for the benefit of the people, they represent. They will govern until the people get sick and tired of them and the next round of rotten politicians sell the people their particular bill of goods, for the specific purpose of getting elected.

So, I guess if asked, it's safe to say that we have been able to keep this republic that the founding fathers have given us, so far. But with all that's been going on over the last 50 years or so, I wonder how long we will be able to continue to do so. With all of the polarization in the political arena today, it's a wonder there hasn't been fighting in the streets. But, that still may come someday, if we aren't careful. If we consent to tearing down the offices and institutions just for political gain (and the empowerment that comes with it), this may very well become a reality in many of our lifetimes.

Much of this isn't new. Scandals have been a part of every single presidency from George Washington on. One only needs to read the book, Executive Privilege by Jack Mitchell to see this plainly enough. Power struggles based on ideology aren't new either. One only needs to read the many books that detail the early days of the American republic, to get an understanding of this. The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were very polarized at the time, much like we are now.

But beside everything else, there is one thing (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that was true then and still holds true today. This imperfect system that is rife with corruption still beats the hell of absolutism and anarchy, any day of the week. It always will.

Knowing this, the questions then become:

How much are we willing to sacrifice to keep those horrible alternatives from becoming a reality, here in this day and age?

When will we realize that corruption does not have to be tolerated?

Is there any hope that someone, somewhere can lead this nation in a bi-partisan way, to meet the challenges that we all must face?

Is it even possible for the two parties to stop continually tearing down one another, with low-life dirty tactics; is it possible to sell their very best ideas to the American people, not because of their own interests but for that of the people?

I am beginning to wonder.

Naive, you say? Well, maybe a little. Cynical? Definitely.

I just think there has to be a better way for the government to meet the obligations of the people. That's all. There has to be a better way, but it has to start with the people demanding better. It's no wonder that the best people for the jobs, don't want the jobs. Until then, we will get the government we deserve. No more, no less.

The PYY Depraved Bastard Of The Week

This week's award goes to Eric Johnson, formerly of Bedford, Indiana.

But he will not be able to to collect the honor, because the depraved bastard is dead. He flew his plane with his 8-year old daughter aboard into his ex-mother-in-law's house, killing himself and his daughter. It appears this is one of those cases where daddy didn't get custody and wanted mommy to pay.

Read about it here in the Indy Star.

Here is an updated story, after more information was learned.

And, for all of you fathers that do not get custody, it's not the end of the world. I didn't get custody of my kids either, many years ago. But I damn sure would not have killed them or anyone else, over it.


Meet the runner-up to the winner. He is the Superintendent of a local school district, in the Indianapolis metro area.

Guiliani Surges

Reuters has this article.

Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani, virtually tied with John McCain in a January poll, held a 25-point lead over the Arizona senator in a Newsweek magazine survey released on Saturday.

Among registered Republicans, 59 percent said they backed the former New York City mayor and 34 percent said they favored McCain, who announced on Wednesday he would seek the presidency in 2008, Newsweek said.

This is certainly not totally unexpected. But yet in some ways, I think it is. I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that Rudy would surge this quick. I actually thought it would have been tighter maybe right up to Iowa, mainly because McCain is the consensus "machine" candidate. Which means he supposed to have the kingmakers-of-the-party endorsments and access to all of the purse strings, early on. It was then, I expected to Rudy to surge, not now.

What is apparent to the political eye, are a number of points to consider. Here are just a few:

One thing is evident, the GOP voters that are being polled now are not going to fall behind the party "machine". They did that with Bush in 2000 and looking back, they may be disappointed in doing so.

The primary season is not far off, but too far to crown anyone the winner, just yet. Iowa is the biggest part of a year away. Traditionally, that is when and where the money starts to flow. But with Giuliani being so far ahead so soon, I would not be the least bit surprised if the money starts working its way to Rudy much sooner. And if this happens, it will put McCain at a sizable disadvantage early.

Why this is, is anyone's true guess. But there are some things that I believe to be true. One thing is, McCain has never been trusted by the GOP. I think the only reason McCain did as well as he did in 2000 ,was because the was the anti-Bush. At least he was the only one that had a snowball's chance in hell, in stopping the "machine".

In the grander scheme of things, I think the party is moving more toward the center. It's subtle, but sure. Center politics is where it's at and they are beginning to act like they know it. In fact, if Rudy is nominated, I would be willing to say that the GOP is less controlled by the hard right, than the Dems are currently with the hard left. The influence of the religious right will be greatly diminished, which is something the Dems would have hoped to exploit in their strategic plans.

But regardless of how we analyze it, this poll only gives a bigger lift than expected to the former mayor of New York City and solidifies him as an actual contender. That much we can say with certainty, but that's about all we can say with any level of confidence, right now. One thing it does not tell us is? The name of the eventual winner.

News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)

Yes, it's that time again. I goofed off a lot this weekend, after a hard week of doing various kinds of tasks that had to be done. I moved my daughter from a dump to a fairly nice place, worked, set my mother-in-law's medications up for the week, paid bills, followed all legal and lawful orders from my wife, and all of the other things necessary to maintain life-support systems.

So, without further rambling from me, it's time for that time-tested feature that usually generates some kind of an argument, when we least expect it.


China Increasing Military Budget

China will raise its annual defense spending by almost 18 percent, the government announced Sunday, as it continues a rapid military buildup that has drawn criticism from the United States.

On the eve of the opening of the annual session of the Chinese Parliament, formally the National People's Congress, a parliamentary spokesman, Jiang Enzhu, said Chinese defense outlays would increase to 350 billion yuan, or $45 billion, this year.

With new found profits creating more tax revenues for the Chinese government, we can look for more increases in the future, as well. But it should come as no surprise, it's an issue I have been covering here for quite awhile now. It's not cause for saber-rattling, but it bears watching. Closely.


A New Global Warming Documentary

That is, if you live in Britain, I guess. But it's not the usual. It pretty much goes against the grain of what the norm, so those of you that have criticized my stance are still likely to, no matter how I present it. But in essence, this is my core argument in the matter:

.....film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

Russian Expert Shot Fours Days After Interview

FBI agents say they are assisting police in suburban Washington who are investigating the shooting of a Russian expert — a man who spoke out on "Dateline NBC" last weekend and strongly suggested that remnants of the KGB were responsible for the bizarre poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko.

Even though I get hammered on it in the comment section (from time to time) on it, I have been hard on the Russian government. And this is just one more (added to many others) reason, why I have.



GOP Candidates Condemn Coulter Slur

This is a follow-up to Saturday's post on the Coulter remark about John Edwards. In my goings-about this weekend, I have yet to find anyone (that is aware of it) that thinks this is okay. Both parties need to get a handle on this kind of behavior and send a message to angry extremists, on both sides of the spectrum.



GOP Set To Fight Jefferson Appointment To Homeland Security Panel

Republicans plan to force a floor vote on Rep. William Jefferson's move to the Homeland Security Committee in an unprecedented maneuver to force Democrats to go on the record supporting their embattled colleague who is the target of a federal bribery investigation.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) pledged to call for a recorded vote on the House floor when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) introduces a resolution to make the Jefferson move official.

Well, need I say anything more?

I think, there's a pretty sad state of affairs going on in our government when we have a Speaker of the House introducing a resolution to make a member accused of a bribery offense, a member of the most important committee in the House of Representives.

First, Murtha a shady politician that was implicated in the ABSCAM case was considered for Majority leader. Then, she wanted Alcee Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Now, she wants William Jefferson, a man that was caught on tape taking the money that was later found in his freezer, to be a member of the HSC.

I mean, come on now. Is there anyone else that has enough brains to do these jobs that do not have these measures of improprieties showing up on their resumes? If so, there is a serious question of leadership here. If not, there's a real problem with the Democratic Party, as whole.



Well that's all the time we have for this installment of News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary). Join us next time.

Now hammer away.

Coulter Out of Control

I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. Sometimes I agree with her politics on certain issues, but I do not find myself approving of her style of delivery, on most occasions. Some people think she is funny, I am not one of them. She is not particularly pretty, she is abrasive, and I have little use for her.

Here is a video showing a snippet that has many upset, and rightly so in my opinion. Howard Dean, who has been relatively quiet lately, is one of them. He is demanding that the GOP candidates denounce this statement, contained in the article:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

I am not a Republican, although I regularly get accused of it. But let it be known right here and now, I condemn this statement and I will join those that I disagree with most of the time, to say that this is deplorable and a very immature way of acting in a public speaking role.

Not only do I denounce it, I call on Ann Coulter to apologize. Not that her apology would be in the least bit considered sincere mind you, but at least it can show that the GOP will call irresponsible statements into accountability. At the very least, if I were in the Republican party, I'd certainly think twice about hiring her to speak at my function.

Needed: Martian Carbon Footprint Calculator

Okay. Forget about Al Gore, forget about the large consensus of those that have theorized their way into the fact books, with an unproven but popular hypothesis. Let's take a look at a possibility that won't be widely discussed in some circles today, as it is found in the highly reputable science publication known as, National Geographic.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Before anyone that is of the opinion that global warming is caused by carbon emissions says anything, let me say upfront here and now- this both proves and disproves nothing at all. It merely means that there is another explanation that needs to be explored and studied, before claiming certain kinds of knowledges.

Good science should never establish something as a fact, without offering other possible explanations (if there were any). Would they?

Good science does not work backwards in its research. Does it?

So, how will this data be received by those that have built and are building their careers around the more popular and widely accepted hypothesis?

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

No surprise there. I will not be surprised to hear that this man has been thoroughly ostracized by the beginning of the week, all for daring to question a generally established "fact" that has yet to be proven.

So unfortunately, there is a large group of scientists that have overemphasized (and may even have purposely over-exaggerated) man's contribution to this phenomenon. By putting their eggs all into one basket, many that hear their sales pitches have come to accept this idea as gospel; and they have done it without considering other possibilities, to include Abdussamatov's explanation.

More than anything, one has to ask some questions here.

Have we become so terribly egocentric that we believe man is important enough to claim responsibility for this, and other things that he bears no responsibility for? Or better yet, have we overestimated our own relevance?

At any rate, I think that I can be sure about one thing in all of this. One certainly should be concerned when a politician buys into, packages, and markets a theory, while a group of scientists falls into lock-step behind him/her. It should be the other way around.

The Mary Ellen And Greg Baseball Thread

Despite the fact she thinks I am a right wing hit job artist, Mary Ellen is a very nice lady and an avid baseball fan. Greg is too ( uh, that is baseball fan, not a nice lady).

Both are Sox fans, ME the White Sox and Greg the Red Sox. I must admit that baseball is not my favorite, but I do enjoy going to the games in person. Watching one on TV is not as exciting, especially when there are 162 games in a season. But I do enjoy it during the playoffs and the Series, because every game is crucial at that point.

As a boy living in So Cal, I was always an Angels fan. For the longest time, I figured they would never win anything. Of course, they proved me wrong awhile back and I suppose that has regenerated my interest, in the game. I was mad at all of them in the 80s and 90s, because of the strikes and basically boycotted them for many years.

Although it is titled for ME and Greg, if you are a baseball fan, this thread is for you. I am busy for the biggest part of the day and may not be able to comment much, so have at it.

(If there are any ex-pat fans out there, this is your chance to talk up your favorite team.)