Daily Wisdom

March 30, 2007

Which Is 'The Real War'?

By Charles Krauthammer
From The Washington Post:

"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan."
-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 8

The Senate and the House have both passed bills for ending the Iraq war, or at least liquidating the American involvement in it. The resolutions, approved by the barest majorities, were underpinned by one unmistakable theme: wrong war, wrong place, distracting us from the real war that is elsewhere.

Where? In Afghanistan. The emphasis on Afghanistan echoed across the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress from Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee to former admiral and Rep. Joe Sestak. It is a staple of the three leading Democratic candidates for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. It is the refrain of their last presidential candidate, John Kerry, and of their current party leader, Howard Dean, who complains that "we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. That's where the real war on terror is."

Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, the greater importance of Afghanistan is the least serious.

And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined, does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan (or some cave on the border) presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that "the most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

And it's not just what al-Qaeda says, it's what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It's no longer Afghanistan but Iraq. That's because they recognize the greater prize.

The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. They would rather support the Afghan war because its origins are cleaner, the casus belli clearer, the moral texture of the enterprise more comfortable. Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, "If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan."

If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. But that is because, unlike a majority of Democratic senators, he did not vote four years earlier to authorize the war in Iraq, a vote for which many have a guilty conscience to be soothed retroactively by pulling out and fighting the "totally just war."

But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terrorism. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the "good war" in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging antiwar Democrats to increase funding that is needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.

March 29, 2007

UN Watch "Dog" Barks

In a speech given during a session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission on March 23rd, Hillel Neuer, Director of United Nations Watch, delivered a scathing attack on the commission's track record, describing it as a "human rights nightmare". Responding to the speech, the Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba said Neuer's speech fell short of "minimum proper conduct," adding that Neuer's comments were "inadmissible."

Here's another case where the U.N. is shown to be a bunch of corrupt, self-serving, political hacks, and their response is to try and squash the messenger. Why am I not surprised? For those with low bandwidth, I've provided a transcript...

De Alba: I now give the floor to a representative of United Nations Watch.

Neuer: Thank you Mr. President. Six decades ago in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, René Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here on the banks of Lake Geneva to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today we ask, what has become of this noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has this council pronounced? What has it decided? Nothing. It's response has been silence. It's response has been indifference. It's response has been criminal. One might say in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a "do-nothing, good-for-nothing" council.

But that would be inaccurate. This council has after all done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state... Israel. In 8 pronouncements (and there will be 3 more this session) Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world... millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries continue to go ignored.

So yes, this council has done something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very a good thing, and that they seek to protect human rights... Palestinian rights. So too, the racist murders of Darfur women, the rapists of Darfur women, tell us that they care about the rights of Palestinian women. The occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied. And the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights? Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is 3 times the combined total that were the pretext for calling Special Session in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights, Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafy, John Dugard... say nothing.

Little 3-year old boy Salam Balusha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Hania's troops. Why has this council chosen silence? Because... because Israel could not be blamed. Because in truth, the despots who run this council couldn't care less about Palestinian or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy. To delegitimize the Jewish state. To scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else... to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights

You ask, "What has become of the founders' dream"? Of Eleanor Roosevelt, of René Cassin, of John Humphrey, P.C. Chang, Charles Malik -- who assembled here in Geneva 60 years ago. Mr. President, with terrible lies and moral inversion, this council is turning that dream into a "nightmare". Thank you Mr. President.

De Alba: For the first time in this session, I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you can listen to me, I am sorry, but I am not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the council, the way in which members of this council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to. And all of this is inadmissable. In the memory of the persons you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statements you make in similar tones to those used today will be stricken out of the records.

March 28, 2007

Prophet or Profit?

In an article at NationalReviewOnline, Michael Barone characterizes Al Gore as something more akin to an Old Testament prophet than a scientist...

Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.

And while I agree with Barone's premise that, like many others in the movement, Gore seems to adhere to the concept of "man-made" global-warming with the fanaticism of religious zealotry, I must disagree with his analogy of an "Old Testament prophet".

I think I can say with confidence that all of the Old Testament prophets were devout and principled men. They were chosen by God to deliver a message to the people of Israel typically because they were of greater faith, humility, and devotion to God, than were the general population.

Contrary to that image of the Old Testament prophet, Al Gore was chosen by no one to deliver his message. Al Gore is a self-appointed spokesman for a "political movement" that leans on faulty science, and which foists its "preconceived notions" on the world, all the while ignoring or pooh-poohing and sometimes even threatening legitimate scientists who hold differing views.

Contrary to the image of an Old Testament prophet who reveals God's Truth to mankind, Al Gore's book/movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" has been shown to be riddled with statements that are one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or simply wrong. Go HERE to see a 140-page point-by-point analysis of such statements made in "An Inconvenient Truth".

And contrary to the image of an Old Testament prophet who is more faithful and devoted to his God and his religion than the general population, Al Gore might be more aptly described as a "Scribe" or a "Pharisee"...

(Jesus) began to say to his disciples first, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." --Luke 12:1

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (repeated 5 times) --Matthew 23:13,15,23,25,27

Al Gore is clearly a hypocrite. While he preaches that we must all do our part to save the planet, he himself is unwilling to reduce his enormous "carbon footprint". While using excessive amounts of electricity and natural gas at his 20-room mansion with heated swimming pool, he also travels regularly on private jets which spew far greater quantities of carbon dioxide than the alternatives of commercial airlines, rail lines, or bus travel.

Apparently Mr. Gore does not believe his own rhetoric enough to practice that which he demands of others. He does not believe in his own religion enough to abide by its tenets. Or perhaps Gore has simply hijacked a theme from the environmental movement in order to further his political career, or to increase his income potential. In the best case, he is lying to himself. In the worst case, he is lying to all of us. In either case, he does not fit the image of an Old Testament prophet.

And finally, Al Gore's excessive life style hardly fits the image of an Old Testament prophet who walked from place to place, wore sackcloth (that is, burlap) and ashes, lived in the wilderness, ate wild locusts, or fasted for up to 40 days at a time. One look at his figure will tell you he's not even on Atkins, let alone fasting.

March 20, 2007

Indoctrinate U

Filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney was a guest Sunday night in primtime on the Fox News program, Hannity's America. Evan dicussed his new documentary Indoctrinate U and the state of the American university. Click HERE to watch the segment on YouTube.

Indoctrinate U is one of the most important documentaries of the year. But it might also be the most important documentary you aren't able to see this year. We know there is a vast audience for this film. But commercial distributors -- the executives who decide what films go into theaters -- don't. So unless we can prove to them that this audience exists -- that you want to see it, Indoctrinate U might not come to a theater near you. All you have to do is sign up to see the film if it comes to your area. There is no cost involved. You can sign up at the Indoctrinate U web site HERE.

Once enough people make this pledge, we will have a mandate that commercial distributors can't ignore. In the meantime, we'll arrange for local screenings every time 500 people sign up in a particular area. In just the few days since the web site has been up, response has been overwhelming. The web site has an interactive map showing where people have signed up. The interactive feature became so bogged down by the number of sign-ups, that only towns with 2 or more sign-ups are now shown on the map.

Here is the trailer for the movie...

March 19, 2007

Skeptics Call Gore's Movie SciFi

From CNSNews.com: In response to former Vice President Al Gore's Academy Award-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," climate change skeptics called the film a "sci-fi disaster" movie. "Al Gore put global warming on the map," said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, at a Capitol Hill press conference on Friday. He called "An Inconvenient Truth" the "most politically influencing documentary." But Lewis added: "Nearly every significant statement that Vice President Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative or wrong."

Lewis outlines these arguments in a 140-page congressional working paper released Friday, ahead of Gore's trip to Washington, D.C., to provide congressional testimony on global warming. To check it out in detail, click HERE.

He said the movie "purport[s] to be a non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science. In reality, the film is a computer-enhanced lawyer's brief for global warming alarmism and energy rationing. The only facts and studies Gore considers are those convenient to his scare-them-green agenda," he said.

Lewis said Gore "vastly overstates carbon dioxide's importance" in climate change, noting that the 1930s were warmer than current temperatures. "Our parents or grandparents somehow survived that crisis, and I think we will, too," he said sarcastically.

March 17, 2007

Global-Warming 2007

I just spent a half-day of shovelling here in Downtown, NJ. The following are a few pics from upstate NY showing how global-warming has been treating them...

March 16, 2007

Winter Blunderland

Special thanks to Cox & Forkum. Please go beyond the cartoon and visit their site to read the entire article HERE. It's good stuff.

March 15, 2007

Carbon-Neutral Global Warming Event

Good news from the tree-huggers HERE.

Environmental activists and liberal politicians will join forces in Washington, D.C., on March 20 for the first "Climate Crisis Action Day," which is billed as a "carbon-neutral global warming event." Speakers at the West Front of the U.S. Capitol will include Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others concerned about climate change. "Visuals will include a giant inflatable earth on fire, hybrid cars, and thousands of advocates in crimson T-shirts," the news release said. Environmental groups that are sponsoring the event expect thousands of Americans to come to the Capitol to meet with their senators and representatives -- and "urge them to support swift, steep reductions in global warming pollution and protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

This is no small feat. In order to accomplish the "carbon-neutral" billing for this event, sponsors are placing unusual demands on those whom they are inviting to participate. For example, unless the invited participant can show that he or she travels by airplane in excess of 15 days per month, or can show (in writing) that he or she has sacrificed a previously paid-for vacation (via airline), then the invitee will not be allowed to fly to Washington, D.C. in order to participate. The sponsors don't want an airline flight to upset the "carbon-neutrality" of the event.

Since most people are expected to drive to the event, invitees are not allowed to drive any more than the average number of miles they drive on a typical commuting work day. In other words, if a person's standard work commute is 30 miles (15 miles each way), then the invitee must drive no more than 30 miles per day to attend the event. If they live 300 miles from Washington, D.C. then they must plan to leave their homes at least 10 days in advance of the event and travel no more than 30 miles per day in order to be truly "carbon-neutral".

The thermostat also presents a problem. If a person decides to attend the event but a loved one remains at home, then the participant cannot use anymore heat or air-conditioning than they would normally use if they remained at home. Let's assume for example that "Bill" comes down from somewhere up north where the heat is still on at home. Bill will not be permitted to use any heat in his motel rooms along the way, unless his loved ones who remain at home are willing to turn down their heat by an equal amount in order to remain "carbon-neutral". Likewise, "Joe" who is attending the event from down south will not be able to use any air-conditioning unless his loved ones at home turn off their AC to offset the carbon value.

Meals are no less of an issue. If "Bill" and "Joe" want to eat while they are away from home, they are not allowed to use any more energy to cook their meals than they would use while still at home. Thus, if a loved one remains at home, then they and their loved ones must decide if each wants to eat a half-cooked meal, or if one will eat a fully-cooked meal while the other eats a cold meal. I suggest that Bill and Joe bring plenty of granola, Special-K™, or (yum!) trail mix. Of course, if they choose the Special-K™, then they probably can't enjoy it with milk. That would require refrigeration or ice. And under the rules, you can't have a refrigerator running at home and use additional refrigeration on the road.

It's the same for almost every appliance or energy-consuming item. To remain "carbon-neutral", the invitee must not use any lights, TVs, alarm clocks, computers, hot water, etc. if their loved ones back home are also using those things. In order to remain "carbon-neutral", each must use half the amount they normally would, or make sure that their loved ones at home are not using the same appliance or commodity at the same time.

The visuals at the event were another source of challenge to the event's sponsors. The "giant inflatable earth on fire" will be made completely out of recycled materials that are processed and assembled by factory workers who volunteer to take leave from their regular jobs and work for free in sub-standard conditions in order to insure that they utilize no more energy (i.e., carbon) than they would have if they actually went to work on those days. Employers of said volunteers must insure that an appropriate reduction in electrical power, lighting, heating, etc. is implemented in order for the volunteers to be truly "carbon-neutral".

The hybrid cars, while pretty to look at, cannot be transported to or from the event using any carbon-based fuel that would not have otherwise been expended on those specific days. Therefore, a Perpetual Motion Machine™ will be used to insure that the hybrid vehicles are brought on and off the site of the event using no energy beyond that which was used to originally start the machine back in 1575 when it was first invented.

The thousands of crimson T-shirts were also a daunting challenge. It was assumed at first that these might be manufactured, dyed, and screen-printed specifically for this event. That would have meant an energy (carbon) investment that would have otherwise been difficult to offset without the purchase of "carbon credits" such as those used by Al Gore to mitigate his extravagent carbon-based energy life style. Using a little ingenuity however, event sponsors were able to locate some red t-shirts HERE, that had already been produced and were not really moving because (according to some kids I talked to) they were really over-priced. "Recycling t-shirts that were not moving off store shelves anyway, is a great way to make a statement at a protest rally", said one of the spokesmen for the event. "These are top-of-the-line t-shirts that a big-name store brand just couldn't move. So... good for us!"

The t-shirts manufactured in Kenosha, WI are expected to arrive in Washington, D.C. on or around March 21st depending on traffic, and exactly how many miles the truck can travel each day versus its normal daily average trip schedule required to maintain "carbon-neutrality".

March 14, 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Redux)

Well, Big Brother Google "swindled" me. Apparently they are no longer allowing this 'You Tube' video to be posted to other web sites or blogs. Little Green Footballs suggests that it might be for copyright violations. That may or may not be true. I for one however, find it very sinister that Google took the independent concept of 'You Tube' and have now 'privatized' it. We might as well call it 'Their Tube'. The video is 1 hour and 16 minutes long, but worth every minute. My apologies to those who may have been directed to this site to see the video. Apparently the only way you can watch this outstanding video is by going to the Google Video site...


A Review From Life Style Extra:

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans. The programme, to be screened on UK Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned. I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy. It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks. Al Gore might have won an Oscar for 'An Inconvenient Truth', but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite. He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth's history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels. While Prof Clark fully acknowledges that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are anthropogenic, he just doesn't see any evidence that the man-made increases of CO2 are driving temperature change.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades. It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began. This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree. He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham. It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by Government appointees.

The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds are being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact. The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their Governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change. 'The Chilling Stars' was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme. Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds. "However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming."

"I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong. "For me this is a cracking science story - I don't come from any political position and I'm certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be. I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story. So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the Government. The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can't compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming. We have the same situation in Britain. The government's chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the Government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change."

The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to 'prove' burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London who also features in the film, warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds. He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect. The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2. It's ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."

Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument. He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning. At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."

In the programme Mr Calder said: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don't agree, you are a heretic." He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."

March 04, 2007

Obama: A Man For All Reasons

The meteoric rise of Barack Obama has been hailed as unprecedented and difficult to explain. That his trajectory has been unprecedented may be true, but hardly difficult to explain. Let's face it. Barack Obama has something for everyone. Just consider:

  • He's a man -- This fact alone raises the interest of nearly 100% of American voters. Most male American voters (and not a few female voters) will NEVER vote for a woman if given another choice. In addition, a significant number of voters who are female (and perhaps some of the 2 million gay men out there) are also interested in the fact that he's a man, but for a very different reason.
  • He's a black man -- Which raises the interest of at least 12.3% of the American population which, according to Census Statistics, consider themselves to be African-American. And it further raises the interest of the female (and gay male) population (because everyone's heard the rumors about black men).
  • He's "attractive" -- Which still further increases his sex appeal.
  • He's thin -- And "thin is in". Again this increases his sex appeal, but it also raises the interest of those who market weight-loss and diet products ("Be like Barack... buy my product").
  • He's young -- This not only adds to his (you guessed it) sex appeal, but it also awakens the interest of those first-time voters who cannot seem to identify with any of the "mainstream" (read: 'old fart') Washington politicos.
  • He's only half-black -- A fact which appeals to all of those white racists among us.
  • His white ancestors were slave-owners -- A fact which attracts those Southerners whose ancestors were equally disposed.
  • He's an OREO -- A fact which appeals to cookie-lovers of all generations.
  • His last name is Obama -- Which (often confused with "Osama") appeals to radical Islamists.
  • His middle name is Hussein -- Which (often confused with Saddam) will allow him to "dictate" to the Iraqis our new strategy of "cut and run" should he be elected.
  • He was raised Muslim -- Having been taught in a Wahabbist Madrassa allows him to understand and "identify" with our Islamic enemies.
  • He's now a Christian -- A fact which attracts right-wing evangelicals who may naively assume that he has now "seen the light" for other than political reasons.
  • He's a Democrat -- Which makes him of interest to (D'OH) Democrats (...and some RINOs).
  • He's a Senator -- Which makes him equal in stature to the likes of John F. Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Robert (KKK) Byrd, and Robert Torricelli.
  • He's authored no legislation -- Which means he cannot be blamed for any BAD legislation.
  • He's never been a governor -- Which means that he has never offended an entire state all at one time.
  • He has no foreign policy experience -- But he lived in another country once (and he likes to travel). Why heck, me too!
  • He's held no leadership roles -- Which means he's never been a BAD leader.
  • He's got little experience -- So, he hasn't had time to be "tainted" yet.
  • He didn't vote to use force in Iraq -- Because he wasn't even elected until 2004.
  • He's a lawyer -- Which means that... well... some lawyers might like him.
  • He's articulate -- Which means that he speaks 'weller' than George W. Bush.
  • He's "clean" -- Which means (I guess) that he bathes regularly and doesn't offend.
  • He's the "first" clean, articulate black leader -- Which means that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Abernathy, Martin Luther King Jr, and even Frederick Douglass were all dirty, blathering idiots.
  • He's a quick wit -- When attacked by the "pig lady" from Arkansas recently, he was quick to defend himself and parry with his own rhetorical barb.
  • He identifies himself with Abraham Lincoln -- So he's audacious AND pretentious (good qualities for a politician).
  • He's written 2 books -- So the East Coast intellectuals love him.
  • He's taken drugs (and he even inhaled) -- So he's got the sympathy vote from drug users and dealers.
  • And he's honest -- Yep, "Honest Obe" they call him.

  • So, what's not to like?

    Warning To Communists & Other Trolls

    The blog administrator (Mr. Eye®) hereby announces the following policy change at "View From Above". Effective immediately... excessively long-winded, self-serving, patronizing and impudent comments from Communists and other trolls will be deleted. Such comments: 1) use valuable bandwidth, 2) offend the sensibilities (and occasionally the digestion) of other "Viewers", 3) lead to excessive wear on scroll wheels, 4) may cause drowsiness while operating machinery, and 5) generally trash the appearance of the Comment section. The blog administrator continues to reserve the right to delete comments of a rude or vulgar nature, and none of his other rights and remedies are waived with the implementation of this new policy.

    Pithy comments are always welcome, even those of a contrarian nature (for example, the "View From Below"). Comments of reasonable length will be tolerated if they add enlightenment to a discussion, subject to the blog administrator's definition of the term "enlightenment". Comments which attempt to argue against every single sentence or word of a posting (or previous comment) will be considered a grievous violation of this new policy and will be punishable by vaporization into the cyber ether.

    That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled surfing.