Quote of the Day

“I carry with me a personal conviction that nothing can be allowed to interfere with our determination and our resolve and our conviction." - Hillary Clinton

This begs the question: If something were to interfere with our conviction, would she still have the same conviction, or would she need a new conviction, or would she just change her conviction to fit the new situation?

I think my resolve is waning...


(Hat tip to Bloomberg.com)

Government at work (6/18/08 edition)

BACK TO SCHOOL
Last week, I gave Canada grief over their lack of free speech rights. Unfortunately, these same limits don't apply to psychics.

A mother drops her autistic daughter off at school, "only to receive a frantic phone call from the school telling her it was urgent she come back right away." This is where the mother's nightmare begins (from CityNews.ca):

The frightened mother rushed back to the campus and was stunned by what she heard - the principal, vice-principal and her daughter's teacher were all waiting for her in the office, telling her they'd received allegations that Victoria had been the victim of sexual abuse - and that the [Children's Aid Society] had been notified.

How did they come by such startling knowledge? Leduc was incredulous as they poured out their story.

"The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

Now it is bad enough that school officials would report this incident to the Children's Aid Society (the Canadian version of a child protection unit in the U.S.). So you know the story couldn't possibly end here:

The mom, who is divorced and has a new fiancé, adamantly denied the charges, noting her daughter was never exposed to anyone of that age. And fortunately she had proof. The mother was long dissatisfied with the treatment her daughter had received at the school, after they had allegedly lost her on several occasions.

As a result, the already cash strapped mom had spent a considerable sum of money to not only have her child equipped with a GPS unit, but one that provided audio records of everything that was going on around her.

So she had non-stop taped proof that nothing untoward had ever happened to her daughter, and was aghast that the situation had gone this far. But under the Child and Family Services Act, anyone who works with children and has reasonable grounds to suspect a youngster is being harmed, must report it immediately - and the CAS has an obligation to follow up.

The word of a psychic constitutes "reasonable grounds"?

NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT
From TheHill.com:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is taking a month off from Congress to recuperate after her marathon run for the presidency.

She is not expected to return to the Senate until July 7 or July 8 after the Independence Day recess, according to two Democratic sources.

Let me get this straight: You spend 18 months basically on leave from your job in order to run for president, then you get a month off AFTER that?

Maybe I need to run for senate in New York? If only I didn't have to live in New York to do it...oh wait, I forgot about the New York rules where you only have to visit the state occasionally to qualify to run for the senate. Sign me up!

SPEAKING OF JOB PERKS...
From Financial Times.com:

[Chris Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate banking committee]on Tuesday admitted he was one of a number of Washington officials who were made members of a VIP programme by a leading mortgage provider but denied he knew this would secure him preferential treatment.

...[Dodd] said he had not asked what Countrywide Financial’s VIP offer entailed and insisted he had not been told that he would receive favourable loan terms.

Sounds like the Democrats have a new version of "don't ask, don't tell".

Comparing the Candidates Part 2: Iraq

Following is part 2 in a continuing series comparing the presidential candidates and where they stand on the issues. (part 1 link)

While all three candidates are pretty clear on their overall view of Iraq, they each have subtleties in their positions which are not as well known (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):

HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary's position is clear: Get the troops out of Iraq. However, her position relies on a diplomatic initiative which will require the support of the U.N. and cooperation from "key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq."

BARACK OBAMA
Obama's position is similar to Hillary's, with one key exception:

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Based on that loophole, Obama could conceivably keep troops in Iraq for the entirety of his presidency.

JOHN McCAIN
Everyone knows about McCain's "100 years" comment about Iraq. His position supports that view, as he plans to INCREASE the number of troops we have in Iraq:

More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

SUMMARY
If Iraq is your primary issue going into the election, the choices are pretty clear. McCain wants to fix Iraq, Clinton wants us out of Iraq, while Obama wants us out but is willing to consider staying there if circumstances require it.

Comparing the Candidates Part 1: Energy/Environment

Beginning today, I will be writing on where the three remaining candidates for president stand on the issues.

The first issue covered will be Global Warming, arguably the greatest scam of our time. Let's see how much damage the candidates will do in order to save our country (and the world) from nothing (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):

HILLARY CLINTON

To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Sounds lovely, doesn't it? But as usual with anything Clintonian, the devil is in the details:

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs

Read: more government regulation, which you will pay for at the pump and in your electricity bills.

A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy.

Read: more oil company taxes, which you will pay for at the pump.

An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards

Once the automakers retool their plants, how is this investment paid back? If this operates as a loan to the automakers, what if they don't take the loan? It is still an intriguing idea, but I am not sure how it will work, or if it can work.

A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae work so well, why not do the same thing for green houses? In the middle of a housing crisis which was brought on by loans to people who shouldn't have been buying houses in the first place, is adding more government loans a good idea?

A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

A new reporting requirement for ALL public companies which we can all pay for in the higher cost of goods! I can't wait!

What does she think companies do when they are impacted by "climate change"? They increase their prices to cover their costs. So we need companies to comply with a new government regulation for what reason?

Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.

A new government agency! Woohoo!

Seriously, there isn't an existing government agency to handle whatever it is she wants the NEC to do?

JOHN McCAIN
One thing I like about McCain's issues statement on the environment is that it is light on details. He basically says we have to maintain a strong economy first, which I agree with 100%. He also mentions using more nuclear power, with which I also agree.

A speech he made on April 23rd of last year provides a lot of the details his issue statement is missing:

Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas, and other technologies are all promising and available alternatives to oil. I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I've never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn't rather compete for sales than subsidies.

...I want to improve and make permanent the research and development tax credit. I want to spend less money on government bureaucracies, and, where the private sector isn't moving out of regulatory fear, to form the partnerships necessary to build demonstration models of promising new technologies such as advanced nuclear power plants, coal gasification, carbon capture and storage, and renewable power so we can take maximum advantage of our most abundant resources.

It is safe to say he plans to leave it up to the free markets to decide how we handle this problem, with a little bit of help from tax breaks.

The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We've let the fears of thirty years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting.

Cutting BACK on government regulation? Can he do that?

Probably not, but it is refreshing to hear a politician say it.

BARACK OBAMA
All three candidates promote "cap and trade" systems. Obama's is a little different:

Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

In other words, a tax on companies which sell their allowances. It is unclear how much the tax will be.

Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

...Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

...Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.

...Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.

More government spending. He has more ideas of different ways to spend government money in a lot of different areas, but no specific energy direction. From biofuels to solar to wind to others, he hits all of them with our tax dollars.

Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S

Aside from the spending aspect of this, is he SURE we can get this done in 5 years?

Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.

I will give Obama some credit for mentioning geothermal as a possibility. Of all possible energy sources, we really don't hear much about geothermal.

Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

This sounds good on the surface, but is a lot more difficult in practice.

Coal energy is derived from the carbon in coal. Low carbon coal provides less energy. Therefore, you have to burn more low carbon coal in order to get the same amount of energy as you would from high carbon coal.

The problem is NOT the coal, but HOW we burn it to produce energy.

SUMMARY
The three candidates show some marked contrasts in energy/environmental policies. As expected, McCain is the farthest from the other two, in that he plans to leave most of it to the free market. Obama wants to spend, spend, spend. Clinton wants to spend too, but she seems to rely on government regulation a bit more than Obama.

The perfect photo of Hillary Clinton

Nothing needs to be said about this one:


(Hat tip to Reuters)

Help! I'm being held hostage by Hillary!

I received the following picture in an email from my dad. The email claimed that Snopes.com had verified it's authenticity. Sure enough they did.


Tha caption from Snopes:

The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School. He's giving the sign of 'coercion' with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's to send messages back to our intelligence services viewing the photo or video. This guy was being coerced into holding hands with Hillary. Little did she know that he would tell us.

The Importance of Clinton's Lesbianism

The blog Wolf Howling has the definitive post regarding rumors of Hillary Clinton's lesbianism. The rumors seem to be picking up steam since The Times of London mentioned them in a piece about South Carolina political rumors, followed by a lead article over at the Drudge Report. However, the rumors have been around since Bill Clinton was president (I can remember first hearing the rumor from a co-worker back in the early 90's, who allegedly had a friend who went to college with Hillary and knew about Hillary's lesbianism.).

If it is true, is Hillary's lesbianism important?

Let's remove the question from Hillary Clinton and ask: Is lesbianism important in presidential politics? There are undoubtedly some people who would never vote for a homosexual candidate, regardless of the candidate's political views. Personally, I consider the issue of lesbianism irrelevant by itself. If an openly lesbian candidate shares my political views, she has my vote. But that is just me.

How about from the aspect of a married woman who is having a lesbian affair on the side, while campaigning for president? What if the candidate publicly lied about being a lesbian? This comes under the same category of any presidential candidate who is cheating on their spouse. Again, there are many voters who would never vote for an unfaithful candidate. Personally, this is where a candidate starts to lose me as a voter, for this reason: If a candidate would lie to their spouse, who should be the most important person in their life, then I believe it is reasonable to assume they would have no trouble whatsoever lying to me, an anonymous voter. However, I would be willing to overlook the trust issue IF the candidate has a history of supporting my political views.

So far, if I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton based on her political views, I would still be doing so.

But there are subtleties to Hillary's situation that I have never seen in politics before.

Consider this quote from Gennifer Flowers' 1995 book, Passion and Betrayal:

“There’s something you need to know. I’ve been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman.” I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn’t believe it when he burst out laughing. I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny. “Honey,” he said, “she’s probably eaten more pussy than I have.”

Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn’t really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him. She didn’t like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn’t enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more.”(page 42, quoted from Wolf Howling's blog)

The reason this is disturbing is: Why would Gennifer Flowers have any reason to attack Hillary Clinton back in 1995? If anything, one might expect her to be sympathetic towards Hillary. However, if she had found out the man she was having an affair with was married to a lesbian, she might use that fact as a means of revenge.

IF Hillary is a lesbian, and IF Bill has known about it since his affair with Gennifer Flowers, then it brings into question how hurt she REALLY was by the Monica Lewinsky affair, as well as the whole Clinton marriage. If she had been cheating on him all these years, why would she care if Bill had an affair?

Another rumor which has been around for a long time is that the Clinton's marriage was nothing more than a professional collaberation between two politically ambitious people. If so, their relationship is a political charade the likes of which have never been seen before. While there have been loveless marriages in politics, has there ever been a marriage that was politically choreographed from the start, between an oversexed heterosexual man and a lesbian?

IF it is proven that Hillary is a lesbian, and IF her marriage has been nothing more than a political convenience, then even her political history has to be called into question. If a person was so congenitally dishonest as to create a sham marriage in order to advance her political career, can you honestly believe that her legislative votes reflect her beliefs?

It is easy to stop here with a hollow image of dishonest Hillary. But put yourself in her shoes for a minute.

Imagine yourself in 1973, having just graduated from Yale Law School. You are a lesbian woman, with strong political ambitions. It doesn't sound like you really have much of a political future, does it? In 1973, lesbian lawyers didn't go very far in politics. You might be able to make it in local politics, possibly even into the U.S. Congress. But you want more than that.

Then you meet Bill Clinton. He is charming, and he shares your political views and ambition (and lust for women?). Maybe he doesn't interest you sexually, but you need a way to accomplish your political goals. You want to change the world, and the world of the 1970's doesn't offer political means to lesbians, even ones who are talented lawyers. So you get married. Changing the world is more important than your personal affairs, right?

Somewhere along the line, Bill realizes you aren't interested in him sexually. Either he cheats on you, or confronts you with it. Maybe you were cheating on him? Regardless of how it happens, the two of you reach an agreement: As long as both of you are discrete, then you both can have as many affairs as you like. The important thing is for both of you to stay together, because the world needs to be changed.

Here we are over 30 years later. You have been living with this lie your entire life. You are leading in the polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination. You are even leading in the early polls for the general election next year. Would YOU come clean NOW? When your main goal all along has been to change the world, and you are so close to accomplishing it, why would anyone risk it?

Personally, I disagree with Hillary's socialist politics. But if you agree with her brand of socialism, then ignore the lesbian rumors and vote for her. Her personal life is a mess, but it was never important to her in the first place. She is trying to accomplish what has always been important to her, and for that she has my respect.