Gas prices and politics.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and knocked out approximately 30% of our oil refineries, the price of gasoline went up so high that consumers were outraged.
Who was the person that was vilified for this? George W. Bush of course. The reason given was usually some vague reference to his "cronies" and Haliburton. The common perception being that Bush and the Republicans control all aspects of the price and distribution of oil and its by-products.
After seeing this piece in the Wall Street Journal, the truth has more to do with partisan politics than that of established common perception. It is often very difficult to point to one specific cause for the price hikes. In this case its no long reach to deduce that a large part had to do with our refinery capacity (or lack thereof). After being blamed in large part for these price hikes, the administration has put forward a bill to speed up the process to approve and build more refineries at abandoned military bases. A logical move when one considers that hurricanes will more than likely strike again in the coming years, no new refineries since 1976 and the bases are just sitting there.
So you would think that it would sail right through, right?
NO WAY, it was blocked by the Senate Environment Committee; excerpt from the WSJ linked above;

"Noting that a House-passed bill to streamline refinery permitting also failed to get even one Democratic vote, Mr. Inhofe concludes the nation's refinery policy is now being held hostage to partisan politics. "In the next election, high gas prices will be one of the Democrats' big campaign issues."

This is classic Democratic partisan tomfoolery. The reason I focus on the Democrats is two-fold. One, the hypocrisy of blaming the other side and two, the lockstep nature of the unanimous votes. Next year when another hurricane hits the gulf, they will be the first to point the finger (and give it)to the Bush administration. In other words, block any proposal that is Republican conceived, no matter how critical, just to make sure that there is no chance of favorable press for the "opposition".
As usual, we, the average working stiffs are the pawns in this political game of one-upsmanship. We are going to have to budget another 30 to 50% more for gas money during the next hurricane season. Its amazing how the constituency's needs of these Democrats gets so little consideration and the depth of how low their regard is for the public which they swore to serve. Such arrogance should be remembered by every voter in the next election.

Thanksgiving and God.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Here is something from the original proclamation that should be read by every member of the ACLU, the PC crowd and atheists who are constantly complaining about references to God in public discourse. The same crowd who wants to seculerize these United States to a point where the mere mention of God would be punishable by law.

"Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.
Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleveth day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh."

Time to start pulling out?

Many Democrats have been calling for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for some time now. Senators Kerry and Kennedy have been repeating this so often that it has become too predictable and shrill. Now we have another voice which has been heard loud and clear. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) wants troops out within six months. I have the utmost respect for this man but it is not a good strategy to announce dates of troop withdrawals. Our enemy can sit back and gather their forces and once we are out they can pounce to disrupt the fledgling Iraqi government.
I know this might shock some readers that have followed my posts lately but the idea is starting to sound tempting. Oh, I don't propose we "cut and run" but at least the government should be drawing up plans for an orderly withdrawal as the Iraqi army and police start to take charge. I know that there can never be a pronouncement that specifies when and how many troops are going to be removed. This proviso should be clearly spelled out by the administration and the popular media should cooperate in this effort instead of playing partisan politics and seeking pronouncements which will endanger our troops who are in harms way.
Our troops have been targeted by the insurgents and too many are dying and being wounded. These insurgents have been identified as being mainly Sunnis from the previous ruling Baathist regime with a few Al-Zarqawi Islamic terrorists. They are making "hit and run" attacks which have been devastating to our troops. Some Sunnis are finally starting to cooperate, although grudgingly, in the political process. They finally are starting to realize that in order to safeguard their "tribal" portion of Iraq, there is really no other alternative.
I fear that as far as Al-Zarqawi, Bin Laden and like-minded terrorists are concerned, their nihilistic cause is one which will be a curse on the civilized world for the foreseeable future. Their insatiable penchant for killing has no end because they have set no goal to be achieved in order to stop their "mission".
The only way to combat them is by cooperative international intelligence agencies to ferret them out, capture and try them in an international tribunal. The USA is going to have to stand back somewhat. We cannot be the ones carrying the ball all the time. It's time to get the bench warmers in the game.

It's about time.

Mr. President, what took you so long? You should have come out swinging a long time ago. I guess it's better late than never.
These highlights of your speech say it clearly:

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

So, 100 House and Senate Democrats also agreed to remove Saddam Hussein. Funny, but I did not see that reported with the same intensity and consistency as the "Bush lied" accounts. As a matter of fact, I did not see it reported at all with the exception of a few conservative bloggers and few, if any, MSM reports.
The far left Democrats still don't get it or just refuse to get it. It's a Global War on Terror and the US has its troops on the front lines of this conflict. Islamic radicalism is attacking our way of life! It's more than just politics as usual.
I understand how political capital is created on both sides of the partisan divide by the use of the news media. A news media that has as much restraint as a flea sizing up a dog's back.
However, when facts about how the decisions to go to war are distorted by the far left in such a way as to undermine the government's efforts, it's behavior that borders on insanity. Repeating the same false and scurrilous accusations over and over and over using every possible media outlet and hoping that they will "stick" is disturbingly obvious. It's sad and discouraging to find that many mainstream Democrats are "going along" with this tactic. This kind of outrageous finger-pointing partisanship can only strengthen the terrorists' resolve as they sense chaos and confusion on our homefront.
Let's hope that all the dramatis personae of this crisis will find their way back to more altruistic endeavors instead of the narrow and self-indulgent groupthink that is being offered as a benefit to the public good.

They are always waiting.

Last weekend, on Saturday, I found myself raking mounds of leaves onto a piece of canvas resembling a king sized bed sheet. When the pile was sufficiently high and occupied every square inch of the sheet I would drag it to a low lying area way in the back of my yard. I keep dumping the leaves there. A huge amount of Oak, Maple, Ash leaves plus pine needles are always waiting for me. They are very familiar to me because this is a routine I repeat for four weekends every fall. Twenty years. The funny part is that by the time all the leaves are piled out back it looks like a small mountain. Then it all sinks down to the original level when Winter's rain and snow rest on it.
Even though I wind up with a sore back I actually enjoy the monotony of this routine. The cool crispness of the air, the smell of wet leaves like moldy mushrooms and neighbors saying "that time of the year again, eh?". I always get that deja vu thing going just like in the movie Groundhog Day. I hated it the first few years but now I enjoy and savor every minute of it. It's a Zen thing now. I work and work and before I realize it's getting dark and I rush to finish. I never just finish, there has to be a mad rush to complete something before the day is done. Then when its too dark, I finally relent and leave the field of battle. Once I'm in the warm confines of the house, I think about how I'll finish tomorrow.
The leaves are waiting.

The Rio Grande game.

There is one gripe I have with the Bush administration and previous administrations going back some twenty years. It is the failure to secure our southern border with Mexico. Since there is no problem with hordes of Canadians entering our country illegally, there is only one border to make more secure. This has been and is now a failure of responsibility and duty of our government officials to safeguard the country. It is a problem that transcends party affiliations. Both sides are equally guilty of neglecting our national security.
Big agriculture and manufacturing business entities do not want to turn off the spigot of cheap labor and lobby extensively to win the favor of the Bush administration. That favor translates to this administration's policy of turning a deaf ear to critics of their shamefully "liberal" border policy. The policy of undermining the border patrols by understaffing and underfunding.
I fear the Democrats would not do much better. They in turn have shown a total disregard for the border issues in the past for a different reason. Hispanic votes from citizens who are sympathetic to their own ancestral heritage. The Dems will not alienate a large part of their voting constituency.
So there you have it, the left and right are both allowing lawlessness and chaos to continue unabated on our southern border.
Round up the usual suspects? There is only one: Votes .. and the country be damned.
Republicans: Corporate interests that rely on cheap labor contribute to the GOP war chest which in turn will fund election campaign ads to bring in more votes.
Democrats: The Hispanic vote is almost as solidly Democratic as the black vote, so the status quo remains unchanged.
I wonder how many illegal migrants crossing over the border think that it is only a minor inconvenience when they get caught. To them it is just a game. The game has been in play for such a long time that they probably no longer consider it to be a crime.
What is the message this policy is sending to law abiding aliens waiting to enter this country legally?

Coincidences to ponder.

Occasionally we hear some facts and figures that grip our attention. We then start to dwell on the laws of probability. Like the connection between Halley's comet and Mark Twain.
From Wikipedia:

Two of the comet's visits - 1835 and 1910 - are the same years as the birth and death of the American novelist Mark Twain. He wrote in 1909, "I came in with Halley's Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it."

He did!

In that vein, here are stats a friend of mine sent over that may make you say: "What are the odds?"

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. > John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. > John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. > Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday. > Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Lincoln 's secretary was named Kennedy. > Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by Southerners. > Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born
in 1808. > Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839. > Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
> Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.' >
Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by
'Ford.'
Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse. > Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their
trials.
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.> A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.

I couldn't find the sound file from the Twilight Zone which would have been an appropriate accompaniment for this piece.