Tuesday, February 28, 2006

A reason to be against the Dubai port deal

All the reasons I have heard against the Dubai port deal have been debunked. Except this one, from the Jerusalem Post website:

"The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned."

Since I see no reason for the U.S. to support a boycott against Israel, I am NOW against the port deal.

(Thanks to Drudge Report for the link.)

Quote of the day

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you is determinism; the way you play it is free will." - Jawaharlal Nehru

Editorial of the day

I cannot let a Thomas Sowell editorial go by without at least mentioning it. Today's editorial, called "Something for Nothing", is an intelligent analysis of the welfare state, with specific mention of Social Security and Medicare. Truly a must-read.

However, the editorial of the day goes to Jay Tea over at Wizbang. His post "There are none so deaf as those who will not hear" is about how, yet again, we are ignoring tremendous threats to world peace (i.e. Iran and Hamas), with some people even going so far as to rationalize the threats away.

In a democracy, this is what you get when you put the government on auto pilot. They ignore threats from outside the country until they become imminent, as they continue to lull you to sleep with welfare programs designed to buy your vote.

As you go to work or school today, know that your congressman, senators, and president are running the country on auto pilot, ignoring the major threats on the horizon, at the same time they are promising something for nothing, even though you are paying for it.

Have a nice day.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Quote of the day

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." - Mahatma Gandhi

Editorial of the day

With President Bush visiting India this week, it is time to take a look at that nation. There is an intriguing Newsweek article over at msnbc.com which summarizes India's current situation. Because the article does present some opinions, such as comparing India to the U.S. in a lot of ways, I put it firmly in the editorial category.

Over the next century, it will be interesting to watch India grow. As a capitalist, I think India could be the blueprint for growth from third world status to first world status. If the Indian government can balance all of the political, social, and economic factors, they could become the world's next great superpower.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Georgia's Official State Dirt?

This article from AJC.com speaks for itself: "Latest dirt on official names".

"Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta)...filed legislation Thursday to name Georgia red clay the state's official dirt."

Obviously, some Georgia state politicians have WAYYYYY too much time on their hands.

Quote of the day

You cannot move mountains by throwing rocks.

Editorial of the day

Actually, this is a blog from Tuesday. It was written by Ryan Gustafson over at The Flickertail Journal. Anyone who has ever worked in a large company can appreciate this one. Enjoy:

A Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day the Japanese won by a mile.

Afterward, the American team became very discouraged and depressed. The American company decided the reason for their crushing defeat had to be found. A management team made up of senior executives was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. They discovered that the Japanese had eight people rowing and one person steering, while the American team had eight people steering and one person rowing.

The American management team hired a consulting firm to assist in analyzing this data, happily paying their considerable fee. After six months of hard work, the consulting firm concluded that too many people were steering the Americans’ boat, while not enough people were rowing. So the American team acted:

To prevent losing to the Japanese again the following year, the team’s management structure was totally reorganized, to include four steering supervisors, three area steering superintendents and one assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the one person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder.

It was called the Rowing Team Quality First Program, with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower. In an all-out attempt to further provide empowerment and enrichment’s to the rower, new paddles and medical benefit incentives were promised in exchange for a victory in the next competition.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management team laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the senior executives as bonuses for a job well done.

(Thanks to Rob over at Say Anything for the link.)

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Editorial AND Quote of the day

I know we are beating the Islamic cartoon controversy to a bloody pulp. But when there is a good take on a story, it has to be read.

Such is the case with this editorial, about how the American press has failed to print the cartoons, in the Washington Post by William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz.

They also get the quote of the day with this gem:

"When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender."

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Quote of the day

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." - Thomas Paine

Maybe it is just me, but when I read this, I instantly thought of the Muslims. I hate that I think of such a large group of people in this way, but their actions lead me to this.

On a separate note, this is almost a corollary to the Biblical quote, "So God created man in His own image..." (Genesis 1:27). While I am not a Creationist, I do find the concept that God created man in his own image intriguing.

It makes an interesting syllogism: If God created man in His own image, and God is cruel, therefore man must be cruel. What a wretched logic that is.

Editorial(s) of the day

There are two editorials today about our miserable public education system.

The first, by Walter E. Williams, talks about how some of our K-12 teachers attempt to indoctrinate their students with their liberal/socialist ideologies (link here).

The second, by John Stossel, talks about how the Teachers' Unions fight to protect their own mediocrity (link here).

The day a politician promises to eliminate Teachers' Unions is the day that politician has earned my vote. As long as he is not wearing a duck suit.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Funniest reply

I was reading a post by Ace over at Say Anything. The post was about a news story which reported some of the cartoon protestors in Afghanistan were threatening to join al Qaeda.

The post got the following reply from someone named likwidshoe:

"But wait,...I hear that the War on Terror is "creating" new terrorists and now we find out that simple cartoons can create them?"

Thanks likwidshoe! You made my day!

Quote of the day

Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle - the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative.” - Karl Popper

I don't know whether Popper defines "avoidable misery", but in general I would agree with his assessment. I would add that the cost and efficiency of fighting the avoidable misery should be weighed between public and private sectors.

Editorial(s) of the day

It is hard for me not to recognize Thomas Sowell's column today, but I have to give it a pass for a more intriguing dialog.

Flemming Rose, the editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten who made the now infamous decision to publish the Muslim cartoons, stated his case in the Washington Post on Sunday.

As an additional contrast, I would like to point out two posts made by Jay Tea over at Wizbang: "NH gives Sharia law a pass" and his followup "A Civil Action".

This brings me to my questions of the day: If Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization, and I strongly suspect it is not, then what do we do? Even if you narrow the question down to "parts of Islam" (such as Sharia law), what do we do?

Monday, February 20, 2006

Editorial of the day

It seems appropriate to select an editorial from one of the men we honor on President's Day today, George Washington. At one meeting of his officers in 1783 during the American Revolution, some of his officers submitted a proposal which would, in effect, make Washington a king. Washington gave the following address:

By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety, how unmilitary, and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the army decide...

Thus much, gentlemen, I have thought it incumbent on me to observe to you, to show upon what principles I opposed the irregular and hasty meeting which was proposed to have been held on Tuesday last - and not because I wanted a disposition to give you every opportunity consistent with your own honor, and the dignity of the army, to make known your grievances. If my conduct heretofore has not evinced to you that I have been a faithful friend to the army, my declaration of it at this time would be equally unavailing and improper. But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country. As I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you on public duty. As I have been the constant companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel and acknowledge your merits. As I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the army. As my heart has ever expanded with joy, when I have heard its praises, and my indignation has arisen, when the mouth of detraction has been opened against it, it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests.

But how are they to be promoted? The way is plain, says the anonymous addresser. If war continues, remove into the unsettled country, there establish yourselves, and leave an ungrateful country to defend itself. But who are they to defend? Our wives, our children, our farms, and other property which we leave behind us. Or, in this state of hostile separation, are we to take the two first (the latter cannot be removed) to perish in a wilderness, with hunger, cold, and nakedness? If peace takes place, never sheathe your swords, says he, until you have obtained full and ample justice; this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our country in the extremest hour of her distress or turning our arms against it (which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into instant compliance), has something so shocking in it that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! What can this writer have in view, by recommending such measures? Can he be a friend to the army? Can he be a friend to this country? Rather, is he not an insidious foe? Some emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent? And what a compliment does he pay to our understandings when he recommends measures in either alternative, impracticable in their nature?

I cannot, in justice to my own belief, and what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this address, without giving it as my decided opinion, that that honorable body entertain exalted sentiments of the services of the army; and, from a full conviction of its merits and sufferings, will do it complete justice. That their endeavors to discover and establish funds for this purpose have been unwearied, and will not cease till they have succeeded, I have not a doubt. But, like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why, then, should we distrust them? And, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures which may cast a shade over that glory which has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an army which is celebrated through all Europe, for its fortitude and patriotism? And for what is this done? To bring the object we seek nearer? No! most certainly, in my opinion, it will cast it at a greater distance.

For myself (and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity, and justice), a grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me, a recollection of the cheerful assistance and prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicissitude of fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an army I have so long had the honor to command will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of complete justice for all your toils and dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my country and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my services to the utmost of my abilities.

While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner to exert whatever ability I am possessed of in your favor, let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an army, they will cause all your accounts to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions, which were published to you two days ago, and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power to render ample justice to you, for your faithful and meritorious services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood.

By thus determining and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes. You will defeat the insidious designs of our enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings. And you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, "Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining."

The previous speech, and the following text, are from The History Place:

This speech was not very well received by his men. Washington then took out a letter from a member of Congress explaining the financial difficulties of the government.

After reading a portion of the letter with his eyes squinting at the small writing, Washington suddenly stopped. His officers stared at him, wondering. Washington then reached into his coat pocket and took out a pair of reading glasses. Few of them knew he wore glasses, and were surprised.

"Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

In that moment of utter vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments.

His officers then cast a unanimous vote, essentially agreeing to the rule of Congress. Thus, the civilian government was preserved and the young experiment of democracy in America continued.

If any of you doubt the importance of George Washington within American History, consider this moment in time. We could easily have ended up being a monarchy or a dictatorship. For all the great work of our founding fathers, all of it would have been for naught had Washington given in to his officers on that day.

Thank you George Washington. I hope you can see now what you created. We thank you for it.

Quote of the day

"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence." - Abraham Lincoln

Friday, February 17, 2006

Double standard

From Cox & Forkum.

The real Elmers in "Fuddgate"

Jon Ham over at Carolina Journal points out an obvious flaw in the White House press corps which should be apparent to anyone who has ever even dabbled in journalism:

"Imagine if just one of the reporters assigned to cover the vice president had staked out the entrance to that ranch in Texas instead of waiting in some warm spot to be spoon fed by a flak. At some point they would have seen an ambulance arrive. Don’t you think that would have piqued some reportorial interest? But apparently that’s not the way reporters who cover the president and vice president work.

In truth, the White House press corps does very little news gathering, if by that we mean beating the bushes to find out things. Instead, they sit in a comfortable auditorium and wait to be told things. One White House correspondent rarely scoops the others, evidently because the correspondents would rather have the security of getting news handed to them collectively than face the prospect of missing a big story.

Not unlike the way the liberal Media wants real life to work. Just sit back and let the government take care of you.

It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, knowing the Fourth Estate is watching our government like hawks. Well-fed hawks. In gilded cages.

(Special thanks to the lovely Mary Katherine Ham over at hughhewitt.com for this link. Yes, she is Jon's daughter. At least that is what she says. If the White House press corps were responsible for verifying this, we would never know.)

Quote of the day

"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." - Michael Jordan

Happy birthday Mike!

Editorial of the day

McQ over at Q and O shows how the Republican weasels are trying to justify the earmarking process.

After reading this, I sent the previous post's email to my congressman.

If Congress won't do what needs to be done, then they need to be replaced. Period.

An email to my congressman

Dear Representative Deal,
I am writing you about an issue which I find troubling. With all of the talk about the problems of earmarks in bills, I find it amazing that the Congress has made no progress towards eliminating this. With all of the corruption this process has allowed, I find it inexcusable for any conservative legislator NOT to be pushing this issue wholeheartedly. For me, elimination of the earmarking process is the litmus test by which you will be judged in the 2006 election.

Ed McGonigal

P.S. If you respond to this, I reserve the right to post it on my blog (http://politicsandpigskins.blogspot.com).

If I get a response from Congressman Nathan Deal, I will share it with all of you.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

NFL Rumors and Stories

I did an article over at Wizbang Sports. Enjoy!

The next vice president?

Peggy Noonan has an interesting editorial today, where she speculates that some people in the Bush administration may be thinking about replacing Dick Cheney.

The main reason I can think of for Bush to do this is to be able to name his own successor. Here is where it gets tricky: If Bush names a potential presidential candidate, how many other potential candidates will get angry?

I expect Bush will not do anything like this until late 2007. That way any backlash will be limited to his last year in office.

As Peggy Noonan astutely points out, "The key thing is Iraq. George Bush cares deeply about Iraq and knows his legacy will be decided there.". Unfortunately, this does not limit the potential field much. I am not aware of any potential Republican candidates who would pull us out of Iraq.

But the Democrats would. So for Bush, the main consideration then has to be someone who can win. McCain and Guliani are electable, based on their appeal to moderate voters. But will they appeal to the conservative Republicans? If the Democrats nominate Hillary, I suspect the Republicans might be a little more flexible with their nomination. Republicans have a strong motivation towards "Anybody but Hillary".

One legacy factor Noonan fails to consider is Bush's Medicare fiasco. Bush would want that maintained, but McCain would undoubtedly gut it (he voted against it).

That leaves Guliani, although I admit I don't know where he stands on Bush's Medicare fiasco. If not Guliani, Bush might go for a dark horse candidate (George Allen?).

For the sake of proper disclosure, my personal favorite for 2008 at this point in time (I reserve the right to change my mind later) is Newt Gingrich, although I doubt he would get Bush's support.

The Cheney Scandal: Some Funny Stuff

While the Media continues it's hissy fit over the Cheney hunting scandal, I thought I would point out some really funny stuff floating around the internet about it.

Over at Q and O, McQ refers to the scandal as "Fuddgate". I can see it now: "I've got you now, you swewy lawyer!"

You can't browse a blog without tripping over this gem from "The Daily Show":

Jon Stewart: “I’m joined now by our own vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst, Rob Corddry. Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it?

Rob Corddry: “Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Wittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington’s face.”

Jon Stewart: “But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?”

Rob Corddry: “Jon, in a post-9-11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak.”

Jon Stewart: “That’s horrible.”

Rob Corddry: “Look, the mere fact that we’re even talking about how the vice president drives up with his rich friends in cars to shoot farm-raised wingless quail-tards is letting the quail know ‘how’ we’re hunting them. I’m sure right now those birds are laughing at us in that little ‘covey’ of theirs.

Even though this is so very liberal, it is still funny to me.

Here is a good one from Michelle Malkin's website:

Reader C.T. writes: "I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy."

Along this same line of thinking, SayAnything had a contest. The winner:

"Miike: I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than get between Michael Moore and a buffet table!"

I would be remiss to leave out my favorites from David Letterman's "Top Ten List: Top Ten Dick Cheney Excuses""

3. "Excuse? I hit him, didn't I?"

2. "Until Democrats approve medicare reform, we have to make some tough choices for the elderly"

Of course, Letterman has been having a field day with this. Some examples from his other "Top Ten" lists this week:

Top 10 Things You Don't Want To Hear On Valentine's Day

...1. "Damn. I thought you were a quail"

Top Ten Good Things About Winning A Gold Medal (Presented By Olympic Gold Medal Winning Speed Skater, Chad Hedrick)

...1. It deflects stray gunshots from Dick Cheney

Quote of the day

We don't have to be as good as we were last year, ... It doesn't matter if we're 15-1 again - if we're 10-6 but we win the Super Bowl, that's a better season.” - Jerome Bettis

Good call Jerome. By the way, happy birthday!

Editorial of the day

In case you had not noticed by now, I love Thomas Sowell. Today, he takes on the "Spoiled Brat Media".

Ironically, I was just telling my wife last night roughly the same thing Sowell says in his editorial:

"There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all, much less to have press conferences."

However, Sowell takes this line of thinking one step further:

"The media love to wrap themselves in the mantle of "the public's right to know" but there is no such dedication to that right when it goes against the journalists' own prejudices."

There is nothing like a little Thomas Sowell to make my day.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Quote of the day

I'm a musician at heart, I know I'm not really a singer. I couldn't compete with real singers. But I sing because the public buys it...” - Nat King Cole

Nat, if you're listening, the reason the public bought your music was because you COULD sing. In my opinion, you were the best singer of all time because of the way you made love to a song.

There is a reason most of your music has never been remade by anyone else: No one could top the original. You sang each note with such feeling and skill that to listen to one of your songs is to know the true art of singing.

To the rest of you, Nat King Cole died on this date in 1965. May he rest in peace, as his music lives on forever.

Editorial of the day

If you have a child in a public school in New York (or anywhere for that matter), don't read today's John Stossel column unless you want to get really, really angry.

It amazes me how no politician EVER suggests getting rid of the teacher's union (the NEA).

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The Raiders and the Shell Game

I have been dragging my feet on writing about the Raiders' hiring of Art Shell as their head coach, mostly because it does not excite me as a Raider fan.

Don't get me wrong: I think it is a good hire. It is NOT a great hire.

The Pros: Shell was a great motivator. When he coached the Raiders before, his teams were usually psyched for the games. They played at a high level, and executed well.

In additon, unlike most of the Raider coaches recently, Shell sees eye-to-eye with Al Davis. Shell is NOT a sycophant. He just happens to agree with Davis on most issues. The great Raider coaches have tended to be this way (i.e. John Madden and Tom Flores).

The Con: Shell was not a great X's and O's coach. His game plans were simplistic, almost to a high school/college level. It was easy to spot what play was called based on the formation. He also was not very good at making adjustments during the game (the AFC Championship against Buffalo was a glaring example of this).

Regardless, I still like Shell better than Norv Turner. Actually, I like Shell better than most of the lemmings who were hired as head coaches this year.

Quote of the day

In honor of Valentine's Day:

"You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun." - Al Capone

I know I have a warped sense of humor.

Editorial of the day

Another good one from Thomas Sowell today about the "phony" crisis of the NSA wiretaps and the "real" crisis of Iranian nukes.

Sowell makes a great point in connection with the outrage over the NSA wiretaps:

"Hundreds of raw FBI files on Republicans were sent to the Clinton White House, in violation of laws and for no higher purpose than having enough dirt on enough people to intimidate political opponents. But domestic spying against Republicans did not shock nearly as many people as intercepting phone calls from terrorists."

Touche, Dr. Sowell.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Quote of the day: The rules and FEMA

"Rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." - Chuck Yeager

Why this quote today? Two reasons. First, it is Chuck Yeager's birthday (born in 1923). Second, it seems appropriate with the news stories of people losing their FEMA-paid hotel rooms.

Hurricane Katrina was last August. Most of these people have been in hotels since September. What have these people done since September to get their lives back? I hear their complaints of "FEMA promised this...FEMA promised that...". These people have handed their lives over to the U.S. government. This means they are now subject to the rules of the U.S. government. If those rules dictate they have to leave their hotel rooms, whose fault is that?

If these people had taken action during these past 5 months, instead of expecting the federal government to take care of them forever, they would be in a better situation now. Instead, they are forced to scramble to find living quarters.

The lesson in this is: Don't be a sheep. Our country is great NOT because of how it takes care of people, but because of how people take care of themselves. Chuck Yeager is the embodiment of this principle.

Editorial of the day

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey had a good editorial yesterday at the Wall Street Journal's website.

Armey presents a good agenda for the Republicans to follow. Will they? Stay tuned...

Friday, February 10, 2006

I'm a capitalist!

For those of you who might want to apply a political label to me, apparently I am a capitalist. At least that is what the following quiz results say:

You are a

Social Moderate
(56% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(76% permissive)

You are best described as a:


Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

(Thanks to Spiderman's Web for the link.)

Neal Boortz = Hypocrite?

On Neal Boortz's website today, he posted the following:

"I haven't seen these ratings myself. This is something I heard over my earpiece last night while I was waiting for my 95 seconds of fame at Scarborough Country on MSNBC...OK .. so what did I hear. Some (unidentified) guest was talking about American Idol. He said that on the night of the State of the Union Speech American Idol, which was on the tube immediately before the speech, had an audience of 30 million. That audience dropped to 9 million when the speech came on. Know what? I can believe it. In today's celebrity/jock-sniffing culture, I can believe it. Sad, but probably true."

Now let's turn back the clock to January 31st. In an article on Boortz's website titled "SPEAK ON, MR. PRESIDENT. I WON'T BE WATCHING", about the State of the Union speech that night, Boortz said:

"... don't expect any real news from tonight's speech. I'll be sawing logs."

So it is ok for Neal to sleep through the speech, but God forbid the rest of America doesn't stay up to watch it? The fact they watch "American Idol" but not the State of the Union speech is "sad", even though Boortz himself was planning to miss it?

While I like Boortz, and I agree that society tends to emphasize things, like celebrity culture, which are unimportant, I think Neal needs to choose what he uses to make his points a little more carefully.

The foxes running the hen house

There are a couple of very disturbing news reports.

First, Washingtonpost.com reports:

"Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and Reid's staff had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation.

The activities -- detailed in previously unreported billing records and correspondence -- occurred over three years as Reid (D-Nev.) collected nearly $68,000 in political donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Then from Reuters.com:

"Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public on Thursday that President Bush met him "almost a dozen" times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal.

"The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows," Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.

Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch.

Does anyone truly believe the government will do any serious investigation into Jack Abramoff's activities? We have the foxes of both parties running our hen house.

(Thanks to Drudge Report for these links.)

Quote of the day

For those of you still in doubt as to what Hillary Clinton believes:

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton

Unfortunately, when you get up in the morning, how many societies do you see in the mirror?

(Special thanks to Neal Boortz's website for the quote.)

Editorial of the day

Peggy Noonan brings the Coretta Scott King funeral and the Muslim cartoon furor together and makes a great point about some of the tasteless things said at the funeral:

"So what? This was the authentic sound of a vibrant democracy doing its thing. It was the exact opposite of the frightened and prissy attitude that if you draw a picture I don't like, I'll have to kill you.

It was: We do free speech here.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Cavuto for President?

Is it too late for me to nominate Neil Cavuto for President?

I missed Cavuto's "Common Sense" article on February 2nd. In it, he talks about what his "State of the Union" speech would be.

Following is Neil's speech, in all it's glory:

"Get off your asses and do something."

Cavuto is a work of art. To paraphrase the line from the movie "Patton", "Anyone that eloquent deserves my vote."

Quote of the day

After her great editorial, I have to give Ann Coulter the "quote of the day" too:

"Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back."

Editorial of the day

I am not one of Ann Coulter's biggest fans, but her column today is a must-read. (link here)

Her best point about this whole cartoon controversy:

"Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries...with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey -- maybe this democracy thing does work!"

If you need any more proof that Muslim governments are promoting these protests, here it is.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Milton Friedman

(Special thanks to Jon Henke over at Q and O for tipping me off on this.)

Big news! There is a Milton Friedman interview over at NPQ. The 93 year old Nobel Prize-winning economist is one of those people who should be listened to whenever he speaks.

I will take issue with one thing Dr. Friedman said:

"The big issue is whether the United States will succeed in its venture of reshaping the Middle East. It is not clear to me that using military force is the way to do it. We should not have gone into Iraq. But we have. At the moment, the most pressing issue, therefore, is to make sure that effort is completed in a satisfactory way."

Iraq was a situation where we could go in now with minimal loss of life, or go in later with tremendous loss of life. We made the right call.

At least he recognizes we have to finish the job there.

However, I fully support the rest of what Dr. Friedman says. Following are a few gems of his wisdom:

"The great virtue of a free market is that it enables people who hate each other, or who are from vastly different religious or ethnic backgrounds, to cooperate economically. Government intervention can’t do that. Politics exacerbates and magnifies differences."

On China:

"The same thing will happen in China that happened in Chile. Political freedom will ultimately break out of its shackles. Tiananmen Square was only the first episode. It is headed for a series of Tiananmen Squares. It cannot continue to develop privately and at the same time maintain its authoritarian character politically. It is headed for a clash. Sooner or later, one or the other will give.

If they don’t free up the political side, its economic growth will come to an end—while it is still at a very low level.

The situation is not all bleak. Personal freedom has grown greatly within China, and that will provoke ever more points of conflict between the individual and state. There is a new generation that is educated and travels abroad. It knows firsthand the alternatives out there. So, the authoritarian character is softening somewhat.

Hong Kong is the bellwether. If the Chinese stick to their agreement to let Hong Kong go its own path, then China will also go that way. If they don’t, that is a very bad sign. I’m optimistic.

I like it when a Nobel Prize winning economist sums up what I have been thinking all along. Although he put it much better than I would have.

On the Internet:

"The Internet is the most effective instrument we have for globalization."

On inequality in free markets:

"On the question of whether inequality of the market might lead the less-well-off democratic majority to push for state control, I’m not so sure. The important issue is not how much inequality there is but how much opportunity there is for individuals to get out of the bottom classes and into the top. If there is enough movement upward, people will accept the efficiency of the markets. If you have opportunity, there is a great tolerance for inequality. That has been the saving grace of the American system."

I added the bold. As long as opportunity is present, the Democrats may as well be screaming their big government solutions to a wall. Of course, the Republicans need to be aware of this too. On the U.S. fiscal deficit, Friedman added:

"If the US government spends 40 percent of the nation’s income, as it does through either borrowing or taxes, that income is not available for people to spend. The deficit is an indirect method of taxation. Of course, politicians prefer to borrow instead of tax because then someone down the road has to deal with the consequences."

In other words, if the Republicans don't get their spending habits under control, they will eventually have an adverse effect on the economy, thereby limiting opportunities available, and giving the Democrats an opening to get into power.

All in all, a very thought-provoking interview with Dr. Friedman.

Quote of the day

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." - G. K. Chesterton

Editorial of the day

The Washington Times website has a good analysis of the McCain letter to Obama.

In summary: "Mr. Obama, the rising freshman star, says noble things, enjoying the applause, but then obeys his party's cynical leaders. Mr. McCain is calling him out on it."

Religious bigotry

I was having an interesting discussion over on literatrix.blogspot.com with Jennifer Snow, the blogger there. The discussion was about how individuals defines themselves. Basically we were disagreeing on this, when Jennifer ended one of her posts with, "I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since your profile indicates you are religious."

It does? Feel free to look at my profile, but I miss the part which says I am religious. Oh wait, I know: I live in Georgia. I must be a Southern Baptist, right? WRONG!

(While I do believe in God, I don't espouse any particular religion. I believe that truth is universal.)

I tried to continue the discussion, although I did add, "And what exactly is wrong with religion, or religious views? Maybe I am reading too much into your comment, but you sound like a KKK member responding to a black man."

That set her off:

"There are many things wrong with being religious and religious views. If I thought otherwise, I would not be an atheist; it would make me more than just a bit of a hypocrit.

Now, as to whether YOU having those beliefs has any effect on ME, that's another story. In a free society, you can believe whatever you like and I truly cannot rouse myself to care. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, what does it matter to me whether my neighbor believes there are twenty gods or no god? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

It has been my experience in the past that no one argues so strenuously over such a small semantic issue unless they have an agenda to promote. If you have garnered from the severity of my reply that I am about to cease humoring your promotion of same on my blog, well then I've successfully conveyed my point. Until now I have refrained from not publishing your further comments on this entry because that would be rude. However, since you've now found it necessary to make aspersions as to my moral character, I will not consider it rude any longer.

Aspersions to your "moral character" Jennifer? You proved your religious bigotry with your first comment: "There are many things wrong with being religious and religious views."

Consider this: The overwhelming majority of the people in the world ARE religious and have religious views.

Or perhaps it was the snobby comment you made earlier about the presumed religious nature of my arguments, even though I mentioned God nowhere? In fact, the reference I made earlier in the argument was to "What is Man?", by Mark Twain, which is one of the most atheistic writings ever made.

At no point was I ever proselytizing. I have no agenda. I was merely arguing my beliefs, just as you were arguing your beliefs. I was enjoying the discussion, until you dismissed my beliefs because you assumed they were coming from a religious person.

By the way, thank you for allowing me to believe what I want. Although I suspect, in your mind, you are simply allowing me to wallow in my ignorance.

The truth is that you put a label on me. That label, in your mind, lowers your opinion of me, and my beliefs. I don't mind being told that I am wrong because someone believes differently. I do mind being told I am wrong because of a label. That is the nature of bigotry.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Quote of the day

"I'd rather be a failure at something I love than a success at something I hate." - George Burns

Editorial of the day

John Fund has a great rundown on that pork factory known as Alaska.

Fund has the following quote from pork-master Senator Ted Stevens about earmark reform:

"What needs fixing is to have the public understand what we do when we earmark bills."

Is it any wonder I equate Alaskan politicians with thieves?

McCain vs. Obama

You have to check out this letter from John McCain to Barack Obama.

Here is a little taste:
"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again."


Here is the CNN.com article about it.

I don't have any problems with Senator Reid's lobbying reform bill, although I do agree with Senator McCain. If you want a truly bipartisan reform bill, it will have to come from a bipartisan effort.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Quote of the day

"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain

I saw this one and thought, yep, that's my wife. Love ya hun.

Editorial of the day

With all the Muslims busy trying to repress freedom of speech over cartoons such as the picture above, I feel it is necessary to remind them why freedom of speech is necessary.

Maybe you need to live in a world where a government of man decides everything for you, but most of us in Western Civilization recognize the evil inherent in power which is centralized in the hands of a few, or one. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But putting a check on abuse of power is just one benefit of freedom of speech. Another is freedom of religion. Without freedom of speech, freedom of religion is impossible. I know you could care less about either of these freedoms, but consider this: Without freedom of religion, what is to stop government from taking away Islam? Without freedom of speech, how are you going to spread Islam if your government forbids it?

Your ideal government would NEVER do such things. But once you give up your freedoms, what is to stop your government?

But the true irony in this is what the cartoon represents, versus your actions. The cartoon shows that within Islam, as represented by Muhammed, violence is at it's core. Yet your actions put the truth to the cartoon. You protest by starting fires and threatening people's lives. You protest by committing acts of violence.

Your actions prove to me the importance of freedom of speech, as well as the rest of the values of Western Civilization. A world controlled by Islam would be cruel, much like you. I used to give Islam the benefit of the doubt regarding it's claims to being a "peaceful" religion. No more. You have shown me the light. Or in your case, the darkness of Islam.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Quote of the day

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

For more Reagan quotes, go here.

Editorial of the day

Every now and then, somebody comes up with an assessment of the current political scene that really nails it. Today, it is Daniel Henninger.

Here is a little sample for your consideration:

"Ideology isn't popular in Washington. The American press abhors it, going so far as to make "ideologue" a term of political opprobrium, if not suggestive of mental illness. Ronald Reagan, an ideologue, was a "cowboy." The press prefers "pragmatists," politicians who win elections then set ideology aside to "get things done."

Looks to me like the pragmatists are running out of covering shade. Ideology is back at the center of American politics. It is going to stay there through the 2008 presidential election. This is what happens when the reigning political class abandons ideology--as now.

While most of this editorial is about the Democratic Party's ideology, I think a point needs to be made about the Republican ideology. If they don't return to the ideology that got them where they are, they will lose power.

If both parties don't return to their ideologies, they may both lose out to a third party.

Political ideology is like a philosophy of life: It is a roadmap to get to where you want to go. You can take little shortcuts here and there. But if you divert too much, you run the risk of not accomplishing your goals. In politics, that gets you run out of office.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

"Time to Blame Bush Again?"

If you want a good chuckle, feel free to visit this post on Spiderman's Web, a Canadian blogger.

Caring government

I don't want my government to care about me. I don't want them to love me. I don't want them to like me.

I want them to leave me alone as much as possible.

I know there are things that government needs from me. I pay my taxes.

I know there are things I need from government (i.e. national security, roads, etc.). They can take care of these things without interference from me.

The rest of the time, I want government out of my face.

I don't want to see government when I go to the doctor.

I don't want checks from the government, because that usually means they are giving me back my own money, which they shouldn't have taken in the first place.

I don't want government teaching my kids. Let them give me a voucher or a check or whatever, and let me take my kids to a private school where they can get an education, instead of an indoctrination.

I don't want government "creating jobs". The kind of jobs government creates are either short-term, or lifelong bureaucratic "drain your soul" type jobs. Government can do more to create jobs by doing nothing.

I don't want government to "save the environment". If they want to regulate the dumping of toxic waste, that's fine. Other than that, I could care less. If a species is endangered, there is a good reason: THEY ARE UNFIT TO SURVIVE! Let them die.

Reagan put it best: "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

No income tax in 2009?

A press release from Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson's website:

Isakson Introduces Legislation to Repeal Tax Code by 2008
Requires Congress to Reauthorize Current Tax Code or Replace It with New System
Flat Tax and National Sales Tax Must Be Considered Among Options

WASHINGTON – Declaring that it's time to give relief to American taxpayers, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) has introduced legislation to repeal the U.S. tax code by 2008 and to force Congress to vote to reauthorize it or replace it with a new system.

Isakson's bill also creates a commission that would be required to examine and to recommend to Congress plausible replacements for the tax code. A flat tax and a national sales tax must be among the options it examines, under Isakson's legislation.

“The average person spends over 13 hours completing IRS Form 1040, and nearly three in five tax filers have to hire help to complete their taxes,” Isakson said. “The time has come for us to give some relief to the American taxpayer through a complete overhaul of our burdensome, confusing and overly complex tax code.”

The Tax Code Termination Act, S.2182, would terminate the current tax code on December 31, 2008. To ensure a smooth transition to a new system, Congress must approve a new tax code by July 4, 2008. If a new system is not approved by July 4, 2008, Congress would be forced to vote to reauthorize the current tax code.

“History has taught us that if we don’t impose a deadline and terminate the tax code by a date certain, overhauling our inefficient system is nearly impossible,” Isakson said. “All options should be on the table and the only way to fairly consider all of them is to start from scratch.”

To help Congress choose the best replacement system, Isakson's bill creates a commission to analyze reform options and report its findings to Congress. The commission would review the impact of the current tax code on the economy, families and workers; the compliance costs to taxpayers, small business and corporations; and the Internal Revenue Service’s ability to administer the current code.

The commission would be required to consider specifically whether the income tax should be replaced with a flat tax, a national sales tax or another option. The commission also would be required to identify the transition costs associated with any change to the present federal tax code.

The commission would also be required to report on the potential impact of any new system on the U.S. economy and on the government’s ability to collect revenue. Additionally, the potential impact of any new system must be presented and reviewed from both static and dynamic scoring models.

The bill will create a National Commission on Tax Reform within the legislative branch, consisting of 15 members. Two of the members will be required to come from businesses with less than 50 employees. The commission will be appointed by the president, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader in the House.

My first thought: YAY!

Then the little realist in me forces me to realize this bill will never pass. But I'm still proud of my senator for trying.

Quote of the day

"Whenever I hear people talking about "liberal ideas," I am always astounded that men should love to fool themselves with empty sounds. An idea should never be liberal; it must be vigorous, positive, and without loose ends so that it may fulfill its divine mission and be productive. The proper place for liberality is in the realm of the emotions." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Editorial of the day

What if Bush's State of the Union were delivered from the liberal perspective? That is the basis of Larry Elder's column today.

When you take all the liberal accusations and put them together in one place, it is amazing how silly they all sound.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Funny news story

I couldn't resist this one. From local6.com:

"Two people in Orange County, Fla., were arrested after an 18-month-old was found with marijuana in his diaper, according to a Local 6 News report.

An Orange County sheriff's deputy pulled over Keith Hughes and Sharonda Hampton over the weekend.

During a search of the vehicle, the officer noticed the smell of marijuana coming from the baby's diaper. The couple was arrested after the drugs were found in the diaper.

This adds new meaning to the phrase, "Man, that's some good shit!"

I know, I should have resisted.

From the "I screwed up BIG" file...

From post-gazette.com:

"Former Steelers linebacker Chad Brown became a free agent last year and entertained three offers: One from the Seattle Seahawks, who had released him; one from the Steelers; and one from the two-time defending Super Bowl champion New England Patriots.

Of the three, the Patriots' was the smallest. Brown chose New England, anyway, because he said he wanted the best chance to get to the Super Bowl."


Editorial of the day

Today I am visiting left field for the editorial of the day: From Ron Goldstein, who makes "The Case for Joe Biden".

I am choosing this editorial for just how wrong it is. I will not argue that Biden could appeal to liberal voters. However, there is a point that Goldstein makes that is way off the mark:

"During the primaries, we may vote for the person who looks as if he or she will perform best as a candidate—someone who “looks” presidential, who seems savvy with the media and who will represent our best interests.

[he goes on to list several other criteria]

...As the Democrats cast about for a candidate who can win in 2008, I want to make the case for Joe Biden. After 34 years in the Senate, Biden can appeal to voters on nearly all of the above criteria."

Exactly how does Biden "look" presidential? Anyone who has ever seen his work on the Judiciary Committee (one thing Goldstein points to as an example) will have to recognize that smarmy "gotcha" smile that Biden has as he speaks to hear himself talk. Of all the politicians on Capital Hill, Biden may be the least adept at covering for his own phoniness. In other words, he is not a very accomplished liar.

That is not to say I want someone who lies to be president. But at least the past presidents who did lie were not telegraphing it (for example, Bill Clinton).

"The senior senator from Delaware has an appealing media persona: He’s not a bad-looking guy, and his performances seem real, not wooden like those of the last two Democratic nominees."

"Real"? Sure, kind of like a used car salesman looks "real".

The real kicker to this editorial is the description of Mr. Goldstein:
"The writer is a veteran of 10 Democratic presidential campaigns dating back to 1976."

There have been eight presidential elections since 1976, including that year. Which means this guy was on the campaigns of at least two losers, maybe more. Assuming he was on both Carter's first campaign and each of Clinton's campaigns, that would mean he has three winners out of ten tries. Not exactly confidence inspiring in his political abilities.

I used to live in Delaware (Biden's home state). I met Joe Biden when he visited my high school about 23 years ago. Even as a teenager, I could smell his b.s. a mile away.

Message to Democrats: If you want Biden, go ahead. That election would be over before it starts.

Quote of the day

"Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy." - George W. Bush, from his State of the Union last night

I couldn't resist making this the quote of the day.

State of the Union

The following quotes are from George W. Bush's State of the Union speech last night.

On terrorists:
"In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil."

A valid point the liberals keep missing.

Just a darned good quote:
"Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy."

On the federal budget:
"Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending – and last year you passed bills that cut this spending."

I have no clue what the speechwriter was drinking or smoking when they added these lines. Either that, or they think "non-security discretionary spending" does NOT include pork or government entitlements, such as Medicare.

This is a bald-faced lie. Period.

If the Democrats want to harp about "Bush lied", here is a good example. Although I doubt they care about fiscal responsibility.

On earmarks:
"I am pleased that Members of Congress are working on earmark reform – because the Federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto."

Mr. President, if the Congress eliminates earmarks (I know, wishful thinking), you won't need the line-item veto.

Regardless, you would need a Constitutional amendment for a line-item veto: the Supreme Court has already thrown it out once before.

On Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid:
"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away – and with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse. So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of Baby Boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

Been there, done that, got nowhere. Until the majority of our politicians get a spine, nothing will happen.

"Creating a commission" is politico-speak for "procrastinate".

On illegal immigration:
"Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our Nation needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty … allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally … and reduces smuggling and crime at the border."

Good statement of the problem. However, I noticed there is no suggested solution. This tells me that illegal immigration is NOT a priority for the Bush administration.

On energy:
"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative – a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy."

The only problem I have with this is that most of our imported oil does NOT go to power "homes and offices".

Fortunately, the President goes on:
"We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment … move beyond a petroleum-based economy … and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

The solution is in there. Unfortunately, something has to actually be DONE. Talk is cheap, Mr. President.

On education:
"Tonight I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our Nation’s children a firm grounding in math and science.

First: I propose to double the Federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years. This funding will support the work of America’s most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

Second: I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit, to encourage bolder private-sector investment in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life – and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.

Third: We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We have made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science … bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms … and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world."

Mr. President, as long as the NEA exists in it's present form, they will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way. Even if you accomplish your goals, they will continue to fight to have them withdrawn.

Like most liberal theories, it sounds great. In reality, you are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

On medical research:
"Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research – human cloning in all its forms … creating or implanting embryos for experiments … creating human-animal hybrids … and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator – and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale."

More nanny government.

Mr. President, I have no problems with outlawing specific activities within medical research. What you are outlining here is complete abolition of certain types of medical research. This is wrong, as well as shortsighted.

I am so glad I read the text this morning instead of staying up to watch this politicial tripe.

Sure, there are some good ideas in there. But I want to see them done before I start patting the President on the back.

Overall, I give Bush a "D" for this one. This is the kind of speech I would expect from a Democratic Party's president. Too much fluff.