GeologicalScienceBlog - subjects include Geology, Climatology, Environmental Science, NASCAR, Beer, Property Rights, Random Thoughts, & Politics from a Christian Conservative/Libertarian/pragmatist viewpoint. As a Dad & Grandad, I am concerned about the overgrowth of government at the expense of freedom. Background - two degrees in Geology (BS '77, MS '90), started studying Geology beginning Senior Year of high school (1971 - 1972) <68>

Friday, September 26, 2008

Addicted to Pork

In my case, it means having difficulty driving past a Bar-B-Que restaurant without stopping in. Indulging therein primarily affects my health. Good pork Bar-B-Que is good for one's mental health, but... [If it ain't shredded pork, it ain't real Bar-B-Que. Yeah, I know there are some good beef brisket restaurants, I know of a couple in El Paso, but it ain't the same thing.]

In the case of Senate Democrats (and House Democrats), it means loading up the Bailout Bill with pork for their favored organizations (ACORN, La Raza,...), if there is any sort of profit to the U.S. Treasury after the dust settles, according to this NewsBusters post. It never ends.

[Note: I haven't yet listened to any talk radio this morning, as I depart on my second job, doing the real estate research, while driving around I will get caught up on the status of the bill.]

The blogosphere and talk radio are going to have to stay on message about how this mess started years ago, largely because of "social engineering" at the hands of "community organizers" putting pressure on banks and savings and loans to extend loans to folks unable to keep up with house payments, all in the name of "economic justice". This is one of those things that takes years to play itself out.

We are in this mess because we ignored responsible, conservative principles, but because of the domino effect, we just can't afford to be ideologically pure at this moment (not about the pork, but about the government bailout). We can't afford to let the system collapse and then wait for it to fix itself.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 9:28 AM 0 comments
|

Why Modern Liberals Ain't - A Minor Clarification

In response to a friend's question,...

The full title should be "Why Modern Liberals Ain't Liberal".

These posts are intended to highlight my opinions about how the Saul Alinsky-taught "Modern Liberals" bear little resemblance to the definition of Classical Liberals.

Such info might be useful in a conversation with a "non-political" person if they ask us "why we don't like "liberals", as I have had a couple of opportunities to do. I usually being with "Liberal doesn't mean what it used to..." and go from there.

A major problem with Conservatives is that we don't spend enough time explaining our reasons for our viewpoints and too often, we allow our unworthy adversaries to define us and our positions. And of course those adversaries get it wrong, either out of ignorance or dishonesty (more likely). We think we have explained it enough that we (as logical individuals) understand it, so other logical individuals ought to understand it. But we forget that - at best - the MSM is ignorant - and at worst - treasonous.

And unlike Barack Obama's recent call to his minions to "get in the faces" of their fellow citizens, if we find ourselves in a quiet conversation with a Barack-favoring person, who is otherwise of good faith and good character, we need to take the strategy of asking them to explain their views of the influences of Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, ... on Barack Obama. I can assure you that persons that absorb the blather of the MSM Talkingheads will know little or nothing of these influences.

Our willingness to engage in open and honest debate makes us better (Classical) Liberals than those of those that infest today's Democrat Party.

That is what it is about.

Labels: ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 9:10 AM 0 comments
|

Friday, September 19, 2008

Why Modern Liberals Ain't - Going on the Personal Attack...Against You!

A true child of Saul Alinsky (who, BTW, dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals" to Satan), Barack Obama is directing his largely-mindless minions to go on the attack, as has been noted by Mike Gallagher (and others).

In a soundbite played by Mike a few minutes ago, Barack was telling the crowd to (slight paraphrasing) go to their neighbors, start an argument and "get in their face".

Yeah, Barack. That is real leadership and maturity.

If a YouTube link shows up later, I will try to post it.

[I have yet to put a McCain/Palin bumpersticker on my car, being concerned about vandalism at the hands of "liberals". I may decide to do so, soon.]

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 9:26 AM 0 comments
|

A Delicious Video Smackdown of a Self-Righteous Lib...

is presented in this Newsbusters post.

The post begins with:

"It was a beautiful sight to behold. The obviously pro-Obama Campbell Brown snarling throughout an interview at the heels of former Hillary Clinton fundraiser and now McCain supporter, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, for "daring" to switch sides."...

Go give it a look and listen. Mrs. de Rothschild, a very wealthy, former Hillary supporter - now a McCain supporter - articulates that elitism isn't about wealth, it is about attitudes and hubris, as expressed in the Obama Camp.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 7:16 AM 1 comments
|

Just a Bare Minimum of Decency...

is apparently too much for Barack Obama and some of his followers.

Mona Charen has a column in which she discusses a C-SPAN appearance in which she encountered a female, "liberal" blogger who denied that infants sometime actually survive abortion attempts. From Charen's opening of the column:

"Appearing on C-SPAN last weekend I mentioned that Barack Obama had opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state senator -- a position he has attempted to deny or obfuscate ever since. The liberal blogger who appeared on the program with me erupted with indignation. She didn't deny that Obama had opposed the bill. She denied, hotly, that babies are ever born alive after an attempted abortion."... [Emphasis added.]

[So is this blogger deeply infected with Denial-of-Reality Syndrome or is she that ignorant?]

Charen continued:

..."Since I have actually met Gianna Jessen, who survived an attempted abortion, I invited viewers to contact me directly if they wanted evidence. My inbox has been bursting.

The denial goes very deep. Any number of e-mailers expressed their contemptuous certainty that "born alive" infants were an invention of pro-life activists."...

Charen continues:

..."When Congress was considering the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, two nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. They described several instances in which babies who were moving and breathing after induced abortions were left to die. The committee report quoted Jill Stanek: "Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact spine."...

Charen continues:

..."The BAIPA was designed to ensure that in those rare cases in which a baby marked for abortion happens to survive -- that the child will be immediately accorded full human and constitutional rights. The measure passed the U.S. House by a vote 380 to 15 but was blocked in the Senate. When a "neutrality clause" was inserted to the effect that the law should not be construed to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, the measure was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law in 2002."...

Even NARAL decided not to oppose the final version of this bill, realizing it was a battle they couldn't win.

Charen continues:

..."In 2003, the Illinois legislature added a neutrality clause to the bill, making it a virtual clone of the federal legislation. As chairman of the committee considering the bill, Obama again opposed it, saying, " an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman ""...

In the comments section, in response to a Lib spouting the usual talking points, including "'We' always bring up late-term abortions", I replied (Comment #14 for the sake of relevance):

"This very column addresses the very specific issue of the willful medical neglect of babies that survive late-term abortions. We bring this up because it is one of the most egregious aspects of abortion. Most "pro-choicers" realize they can't win this specific argument, once citizens know the truth, even NARAL didn't put up a fight once the language to "protect" Roe v. Wade was inserted.

So why did Barack Obama go beyond where NARAL would go? Was it because he didn't read (or understand) the bill? Or was it just a reflection of his diehard adherence to Leftist attitudes towards life, which may have been illustrated by his comments about not wanting his daughters to be "punished with a baby"?

I don't deny that most often, there are medical reasons for late-term abortions, but when the baby defies all odds and survives, then "we" have to act like adults and deal with it, even if it means only giving some aid-and-comfort to the dying infant. Barack Obama didn't even want to require that bare minimum of decency."

So, how often has Barack Obama been willing to admit he was wrong?

Labels: ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 7:16 AM 0 comments
|

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Do You Really Want Liberal Democrats in Charge of Future Energy Policy?

Regardless of how we feel about the totality of the Republican Presidential ticket, we need to push forward and hope for long-coattails in the Senate and House.

Even for those "Gang of 10" Republican Senators that seem to be trying on their RINO suits. For all of the Republican flaws, Democrats need to be swept from their positions of authority in the House and Senate.

This FrontPageMag article recounts how three Democrat Senators (Schumer, Kerry, and McCaskill) managed to screw-up and destroy a planned oil contract between the Iraqi government and Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, and BP, by interfering with negotiations.

Now China has stepped into the void.

From the Frederick W. Kagan article:

..."The Iraqi government was poised to sign no-bid contracts with those firms this summer to help make immediate and needed improvements in Iraq's oil infrastructure. The result would have been significant foreign investment in Iraq, an expansion of Iraqi government revenues, and an increase in the global supply of oil. "... [Emphasis added.]

It could have been a win-win for American and British oil companies and the Iraqi people. It could have been the efficiency (though humanly-flawed) of the free-market driven oil company expertise in repairing the Iraqi oil infrastructure - neglected by Saddam Hussein while he was building more palaces and damaged by terrorist attacks. Now the contract will be with a Communist entity, representing an government that utilizes virtual slavery and a whole host of other characteristics of a tyranny.

No doubt the three Democrats wanted the Bush Administration to look bad, but they claimed to be concerned about the lack of a "hydrocarbons law" in Iraqi to deal with the issue of equitable distribution of oil revenues. According to Kagan, this equitable distribution of revenues is already happening:

..."But the ostensible premise of the senators' objections was false--Iraq may not have a hydrocarbons law, but the central government has been sharing oil revenues equitably and there is no reason at all to imagine that signing the deals would have generated increased violence (and this was certainly not the view of American civilian and military officials on the ground in Iraq at the time). It is certain that killing the deals has delayed the maturation of Iraq's oil industry without producing the desired hydrocarbons legislation."... [Emphasis added.]

In claiming justification for meddling, McCaskill found it necessary to lie:

..."Nor is it entirely clear what the senators' motivations were. Their release (available along with their letter to Secretary Rice at the New York Observer quoted Senator McCaskill as follows: "'It's bad enough that we have no-bid contracts being awarded for work in Iraq. It's bad enough that the big oil companies continue to receive government handouts while they post record breaking profits. But now the most profitable companies in the universe [the lie]--America's biggest oil companies--stand to reap the rewards of this no-bid contract on top of it all,' McCaskill said."... [Emphasis added.]

[There are a number of American industries that have historically higher profit margins than oil companies. Besides, how does she know what else in going on in the entirety of the universe regarding corporate profits?]

For months Libs have been hollering about "It is time for Iraq to start paying some of the bills.", which is what these contracts would have started to do. Crude oil is the quickest commodity that Iraq can get to the world market in order to generate foreign exchange. But an infrastructure is needed to deliver that commodity. Some people in our government have figured out that the government-bid process is too slow to actually get things done in "things are hot". Even the Clinton Administration figured that out, signing Halliburton to no-bid contracts in Kosovo.

These oil companies probably have their own "infrastructure divisions" for pipeline (and other facilities) repair and/or some of the work could have been subbed out to Halliburton (gasp!) and its subsidiaries, in order to "git 'er done!".

Hey Pat Buchanan - is this a possible violation of the Logan Act?

How about Barack Obama's asking the Iraqi foreign minister to hold off on a strategic framework agreement until after the November election? Is that a violation of the Logan Act? [He, of course, wants the credit. Barack Obama would rather stall progress, than do anything that might reflect well on the Bush Administration. Senator Obama, if it is so damned important, why not let it happen when it will, rather than artificially waiting until next year?]

I wish President Bush had a little more of Pat Buchanan's "Irish" in him when it comes to prosecuting those that interfere with sensitive negotiations and plans. A few names come to mind,... Obama, Kerry, McCaskill, Schumer, Rockefeller,...

It is proper to debate these issues in the halls of Congress, but not to travel to the "theater" and interfere or have one's emissaries do so, before one is elected.

So in the case of the collapsed contract deal, I suppose these "loyal opposition" Senators would rather see the money from China's deal going to bolster China's military, than possibly increasing the profits, the jobs, and tax revenues of American oil companies (or the American subsidiaries) of multinationals.

The last time I checked - unlike China - ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, and BP were not upgrading their arsenal of nuclear ICBM's. In the next 20 years, which is more likely to bring death and destruction to American cities, oil-company profits or Chinese ICBMs?

It is totally in-character for the modern Democrat Party to sabotage something, then complain about it not getting done, vis-à-vis, how our oil/gas production system and our refinery system have declined over the last 20-30 years, and the lack of reform of the Social Security system.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 9:58 AM 0 comments
|

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Kitty Update


The kitten, now named "Patches", is 6 weeks old and she has been in that "too cute" stage for the last week.
In this particular photo, she is playing with my camera case. When I am on the floor playing with her, she takes great pleasure in climbing my arm or back (claws extended, of course).
Just in case anyone is curious.
Posted by: on-the-rocks / 11:52 PM 0 comments
|

Why Modern Liberals Ain't - Future Suppressions

[From WND.com, there is a new push for "hate crimes" legislation in Congress.]

Future suppressions of free speech and the practice of one's faith are looming again. They are already being selectively practiced in Canada, the UK, Scandinavia,...where one can be fined and/or possibly jailed when one makes a member of a protected species uncomfortable.

[I am not talking about insulting an endangered animal by criticizing its restricted feeding habits - "Silly koala, if you would learn to eat something besides eucalyptus leaves, you wouldn't be endangered!" - That sounds like a Monty Python skit, where people are hauled before a judge for insulting animals in a zoo.]

I am referring to something more sinister. On our northern doorstep, Canadian citizens have been hauled before star chambers (Sorry, provincial Human Rights Commissions) for insulting Muslims or homosexuals. Actually, the usual charge is (paraphrasing) causing a person or group to possibly be exposed to hatred or acts of hatred (or to feel as if they are being exposed or threatened). So if you quote Christian or Jewish scripture against homosexual behaviors or point out the unhealthful aspects of certain behaviors, though your writings or broadcast words may be well thought-out and thoughtfully prepared, because a Fred Phelps-type of wacko might react in a truly hateful (or violent) way you can be in trouble.

The same thing can happen if you happen to write (or speak) of your concerns about future Islamist terror worldwide, even if such writings (or broadcasts) take place in the United States. If you happen to travel into Canada (or at least one of the provinces with a Human Rights Commisson), you may be arrested, if a Muslim activist has been offended.

As long-standing Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures have disapprovals of or prohibitions against homosexual behavior, I have yet to hear of a rabbi or imam being hauled before a provincial Human Rights Commission on hate crimes charges.

So how will libs handle that conundrum? If an imam quotes from the Qu'ran and says that homosexuals should be executed (as they are in Iran), what will such Human Rights Commissions do? Will they prosecute the imam as they have Christian ministers for simply quoting scriptures, saying that homosexual practices are sinful (but not calling for any sort of violence against homosexuals)?

Some individual American states have their own Human Rights Commissions, wherein simply declining to photograph a lesbian "committment ceremony" in New Mexico or declining to do landscaping in Texas, for a homosexual "couple" can result in "hate crimes" charges and fines (I am not sure if the Houston, Texas case resulted in a fine). In either case, there were probably numerous other competitors that would do the requested work. Neither vendor tried to stop the requested service, they just declined to perform the requested service.

In the world of "Liberal" tolerance, that word only applies to one side of the street, one is not allowed to disagree or to disapprove of certain personal behaviors. Disagreement is not hate. Disapproval is not hate. If I say something in sensible disagreement and some wacko takes it too far, it is the wacko's fault, not mine. But it is easier to attack the non-violent messenger than to actually deal with the violent wacko.

And as "Liberals" win each battle, it can spread. If you disagree with a Lib's position on Global Warming, you could be charged with Hate Crimes against Gaia (Mother Earth). There are already "Liberals" and "Liberal"-infected scientists that want you to be prosecuted for your own educated interpretations of nature, if it disagrees with their viewpoints. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is a fact, as it is a measurable 380 ppm (0.038%).

What that 0.038% means regarding the Greenhouse Effect and Climate is a matter of interpretation. And when we consider that direct human contributions represent a minor part of that 0.038%, if we are skeptical that humans can cause anything more than minor effects to temperatures, in their "liberal" world, we should be put on trial and in prison. Or at the very least be denied our science-related jobs.

Does that sound like freedom to you?

To take this "Gaia hate" thing a little further, if you want drilling in ANWR, you could likewise be accused of hate crimes against nature. If you support the building of a new high tech coal-burning power plant or a new oil refinery, the same charges could befall you. If you think there are plenty of polar bears, same thing.

This is the nature of the slippery slope.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 8:36 AM 0 comments
|

Friday, September 12, 2008

They Must be Collectively Sitting Around Their Bongs

[No, I am not reminiscing about my college days.]


I am speculating how Democrat operatives are coming up with new Sarah Palin "scandals" or stretching the definition of incidents to fit their definition of scandal. And if they don't find anything suitable, they make something up. How convenient!


Apparently, while Mayor of Wasilla, AK, Sarah Palin made a few inquiries about withdrawing certain book titles from the local library. [This article sheds a little light on this particular controversy.] It is appropriate for a mayor to learn about "how things are done" or "how citizen inquiries" are handled, in the wake of a citizen complaint against a particular book title being in the library. Apparently, she never acted upon the citizen complaint and she never took any other actions towards asking (or demanding) that a particular book be withdrawn.


In a society dedicated to freedom, true censorship is a concern, but there are interpretations as to what constitutes censorship and there are real considerations as to what is appropriate for general circulation at a taxpayer-funded library, especially one frequented by children. If a citizen asks that a book, deemed inappropriate, be withdrawn from general circulation and placed "on reserve", i.e., it is still available by request by adults, is that censorship?


And how do we determine what is appropriate? Most sensible adults would agree that magazines such as High Times, Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and other "men's magazines" are not appropriate for public library display. There need to be some sort of standards. Some "Libertarians" disconnect responsibility from freedom. [Though I haven't listened to Neal Boortz lately, I believe he has ranted before about library controversies, such as porn-blocking software on library computers, saying (paraphrasing) that parents have a responsibility to monitor their childrens' activities at the public library. Though there is a grain of truth here, generally I disagree. We should be able to trust that our kids are in a safe environment in the public library, without having to look over their shoulder(s), whether they are looking at a book, a magazine, or a computer screen. As might be expected, the devil lies in the details and in the interpretations.]

If a significant number of citizens object to a particular genre or a specific title being on display or general circulation, if the book is "put on reserve" - is that censorship? I am not in favor of libraries knuckling under at the behest of a single complainant (sp.?). There has been a local mom that has been on a crusade to remove Harry Potter books from the county libraries, though she claims (as of a few months ago) that she hasn't read any of the books. I don't have a problem with Harry Potter books, my son has read all of them and he yet to become a witch or warlock.

With so many bookstores nowadays that can order a book for you or the internet, you still have opportunities to access the book. Libraries no longer have the monopoly they once had.

Another un-highlighted issue - the American Library Association is known to be infested with Liberals. Librarians can practice their own type of "censorship" with what they order for their shelves and by - for policy reasons - declining donations of particular books.

BTW, though it hasn't been sent to me, at least some of the purported Sarah-Palin-banned-books list includes the Harry Potter series, which started appearing after her term as mayor ended.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 8:12 AM 3 comments
|

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Lest We Forget...


[Updated and slightly modified from 9/11/06 and 9/11/07].

Because Each One Had a Name - The 2,996 Project

Who was Robert A. Lawrence? He was a husband to Suzanne and a Dad to daughter Toland, then 11 and son Bobby, then 9. [They are now 18 and 16.]

He was one of the 2,996 victims of 9/11. His name is listed here on this CNN WTC list of victims.

Robert A. Lawrence was 41 at the time of his death on 9/11.

He was a Mortgage-backed Securities Specialist for the firm of Sandler O'Neill & Partners. Sandler O'Neill and Partners was on the 104th floor of 2 World Trade Center. Of the 180 employees, 66 were killed.

Robert, despite his dislike of heights, began his career with Sandler O'Neill & Partners on September 10, 2001. It was one of those sacrifices that parents make in order to put food on the family table.

We know that Tower 2 was partially evacuated after Tower 1 was hit, but because too many people were in the "it was an accident" mindset, workers in Tower 2 were given the "all clear" to re-enter the building at 9:00 AM.

At 9:03 AM, United Flight 175 slammed into 2 WTC (the South Tower), immediately impacting floors 78 through 84 of the 110. The impact isolated those above the crash by blocking stairwells and elevator shafts, through damage, debris, and fire.

Besides being a Husband and Dad, he was a Son, a Brother, a Nephew, a Cousin, and no doubt a Friend to many. From the online tributes, we also know that he enjoyed sports with family members, he liked to play guitar to entertain his kids and other family members. He had a sense of humor and he liked to organize events and meetings.

He doesn't sound like the "Little Eichmann" label applied to 9/11 victims by Ward Churchill. He doesn't sound like the kind of person that deserved this sort of payback, as opined by Noam Chomsky, because of the sins of past Americans regarding American Indians, Mexico, the Philippines, etc.. He was just another American engaging in commerce, bringing together the combined talents of "Wall Street" and "Main Street", both vital parts of American commerce, which the MSM tries to separate.

This is one particular timeline of 9/11, because some want us to forget. [Some are saying, in essence, that it is "no big deal".]

Going to the 2,996 Project Website, you can find another bio of John A. Lawrence. His other 2,996 Project tribute is by Matt Rooney at The Republic Square.

[2008 Update: I hope I continue to do some justice in this brief tribute with this brief yearly tribute. We need to continue our private efforts as the MSM is clearly devoted to hiding images from our collective view. Also remember how Keith Olbermann "had a cow" over the 9/11 tribute at the Republican National Convention. That sanctimonious bastard got torqued over the Republican Party's "exploitation" of 9/11, when most adults-in-the-room know that it is about reminding ourselves of why we continue to prosecute the War on Islamist Terror.]
[More links to the 2,996 Project and other info were posted on 9/12/06. Here is what I posted on 9/11/05. Go back and study some more.]

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 8:46 AM 5 comments
|

Another Remembrance from the 2,996 Project

A random pick from the list is presented by D. Challener Roe;

His first tribute (on this link) is to the Falkenberg family:

Charles Falkenberg - Software engineer, Dad
Leslie Whittington (Falkenberg) - Associate Prof., Georgetown Univ., Mom
Zoe Falkenberg, aged 8
Dana Falkenberg, aged 3

Leslie had earned a visiting professor spot at Australian National University at Canberra and was moving her family to Australia during the term of her temporary position. They were on American Airlines Flight 77.

Go visit the 2,996 site and read some more tributes.

[To keep the Robert A. Lawrence tribute at the top, later posts will be entered with earlier times, today.]

[I could make a snarky comment about Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, et al, choking on their own bile, but I won't.]

Labels:

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 8:39 AM 0 comments
|

Just a Few Thoughts on 9/11

What were you thinking...on the afternoon of 9/11/2001?

I was thinking "What's next?". I was expecting some sort of attacks against the West Coast.

If you honestly recall your thoughts and emotions of that day, if someone had said "There won't be any more of these types of attacks against the United States for at least the next seven years." - would you have believed them? I wouldn't have.

We are years away from saying that "we are safe", but because of the passage of seven years (assuming we get through the day safely), we can say that we are probably safer than we were on 9/10/2001.

Though we will learn more in the coming years about what has been going on behind the scenes, I think we can credit some of the 7 years of relative safety to the Bush Doctrine. The Nutroots/"Truthers" continue to convey the irrelevant factoid that "Iraq didn't attack us" on 9/11. To my knowledge, neither President Bush nor VP Cheney ever made this assertion. But President Bush and VP Cheney understand that the Islamist War on the West is bigger than Al Qaida and bigger than 9/11.

We ignored the first 30 some-odd years of the Islamist War on the West and some continue to ignore it.

9/11 was simply a single battle of this war, a battle that we lost. Blame can go around as to those that showed weakness following prior attacks against the West and its universal values. The administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and to an extent George W. Bush share some responsibilities, but remember that President Bush 43 was only in office for 8 months on 9/11/01. The planning for 9/11 clearly began during the Clinton Administration, that is why ABC has suppressed the DVD release of the movie "The Path to 9/11".

I am not in favor of any wholesale prosecution of Bill Clinton or most members of his administration, but I do wish that Pat Buchanan had been in office to prosecute Jamie Gorelick (sp.?) for her willful obstruction of our ability to tract suspicious persons before 9/11, something apparently done to protect Bill Clinton. And we should have prosecuted Sandy Berger for his destruction of Clinton-era documents in the National Archives. [BTW, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have both hinted at a desire to perhaps prosecute President Bush and VP Cheney for "war crimes" should they win and there are treasonous Dems in Congress that will certainly help them.]

There is always going to be 20/20 hindsight about our flawed prosecution of this war, which is as serious as WWII, though vastly different.

In summary, we were attacked before and on 9/11/01 because we were perceived as being divided, weak, and corrupt. The Bush Administration has demonstrated resolve in it's war on Iraq, known to be a pre-9/11 sponsor of Islamist terror. They learned that President Bush had the resolve to "come and kick their ass" and they suspect the same of John McCain, in light of his legendary temper. The "Middle Eastern culture" respects strength and resolve.

The vast majority of Democrats continue to send the message of weakness and division and they only reason Islamists might not test Barack Obama is because they think he is a Muslim. If they come to the conclusion that he is an Apostate and weak or if they don't get enough concessions, that is likely to bring on another attack.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 7:17 AM 0 comments
|

A Reminder to Barack Obama's Legions in the Media...

you can only protect his glass house for so long. And the more stones you fling towards John McCain and especially towards Sarah Palin, the more are going to be "flung back" towards Barack Obama.

Barack Obama himself reminded us, in regard to the attacks on Bristol Palin, that his own mother was 18 when he was born. But his friends in the media didn't get the message or else "behind the scenes" someone else (George Soros, et al, ?) is running the show.

Here linked is a video "rant" by Rev. James David Manning, bluntly reminding us of Barack Obama's parents. [I would never have the chutzbah to say these things and IMHO they are only pertinent in light of the media attack on the family of Sarah Palin and how the Palin family deals with adverse events vs. how Barack Obama, Sr. dealt with his responsibilities.]

It is clear that their hatred of anything traditional - as illustrated by the Palin family - and their zeal to help Obama overshadows any shred of common sense.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 6:53 AM 0 comments
|

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

"Doctor" Joe Biden Speaks...

on the issue of stem cell research.

By way of Hugh Hewitt's radio program and his blog (and Ben Smith's Politico blog) comes word of Joe Biden, eminent expert on stem cell research, speaking at a campaign stop.

From Ben Smith's blog, these words are attributed to Biden:

"I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?"

Then Smith goes on to say:

"Palin reportedly opposes much stem cell research; McCain supports it."

When one speaks (or writes) of someone else's opposition to stem cell research - without making the distinction between adult- and embryonic-stem cells - the speaker/writer is either ignorant or wishing to make a political point by omitting vital details, this includes Smith. [Back to that in a moment.]

So, Dr. Biden, what the hell does stem cell research have to do with Down Syndrome? How is stem cell research going to deal with that pesky extra chromosome?

For the moment, I don't know what Sarah Palin's position on stem cell research is. I do know how lib pundits and talkingheads regularly lie about the Bush Administration's position on embryonic stem cell research (or maybe they are just ignorant).

[For the sake of discussion, I will presume that Sarah Palin's stance is similar to that of the Bush Administration.] To restate the basics of the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, they know that they cannot stop privately-funded embryonic stem cell research, which entails the cutting apart of human embryoes, for "spare parts". What they rightly refuse to do is to give the practice a de facto blessing by allowing it to be funded by taxpayer money. There was never any ban on the embryonic stem cell research, just the taxpayer funding of it.

I don't know the status of any Federal taxpayer-funded adult stem cell research, which seems to show more promise, than the morally-questionable use of embryonic stem cells. I am sure there is plenty of private funding available for research and I don't know of any mainstream people that object to the use of adult, umbilical, or any other non-embryonic stem cells for research. And I seriously doubt that Sarah Palin objects to research on the other types of stem cells.

[I don't regularly read Ben Smith's blog, so I don't have a firm grasp on his politics, but gathering from the number of Leftist Moonbats that lied and misrepresented the Bush Doctrine on embryonic stem cell research (in the comments section), I would guess that he is a lib. There were a few sane comments, but most were typical leftist drabble and lies. And a few of them need some remedial tutoring in grammar, sentence structure, and the usefulness of paragraph breaks.]

So in summary, it is my understanding that in a court-of-law, not telling the whole truth is perjury. Claiming that President Bush, Sarah Palin, et al, are against stem cell research, while omitting the all-important "embryonic" details (or taxpayer funding details), is the equivalent of perjury.

Labels: , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 11:54 PM 0 comments
|

Friday, September 05, 2008

What a Geologist Sees - Part 21

Understanding the concept of Base Level is an important part of understanding the behavior of streams, erosion, and subaerial (terrestrial) stream deposition.

"Base Level" (mentioned briefly here) as a concept was defined by John Wesley Powell and is the lowest point to which a stream can erode at any one point. More info is presented here.


Ultimate Base Level is Mean Sea Level, i.e., rivers and streams cannot erode any deeper than sea level.

Over geologic time, Ultimate Base Level changes with changes in sea level. The primary causes of Mean Sea Level are variations in polar icecap coverage (more ice = lower sea level) and variations in plate-tectonics oceanic rift zone activity. When rift zones are more active, the sea floor is bulged upwards by the rising mantle plumes, which displaces sea water and raises sea level. When rift zone activity slows, sea level drops. Add to this local changes in the elevation of continental margins. When the edge of a continent rises, that mimics a sea level drop (aka a Regression) and vice versa when the edge of a continent sinks, that mimics a sea level rise (aka a Transgression).

When the Ultimate Base Level rises, the "Ultimate Stream Gradient" (from the ultimate stream/river source) is decreased, resulting in more deposition. There will be deposition also in any "drowned" portions of previously exposed river systems. When Ultimate Base Level drops, the Ultimate Stream Gradient increases (steepens), resulting in more erosion.

Within every river and creek system, there are inumerable "Local Base Levels", points below which the upstream river (or creek) cannot erode. Local Base Level controls the upstream-gradient on that particular river/creek until the next higher-elevation Local Base Level.

In the second photo, there is a small example of a Local Base Level, established by this small outrcop in Chickamauga Battlefield Park. Upstream from this locally resistant outcrop, the stream is prevented from down-cutting any further. The next ledge or other outcrop upstream then establishes the next upstream Local Base Level.

As changes in sea level affect the Ultimate Base Level and the Ultimate Gradient, changes in a Local Base Level affects Local Stream Gradients. When a dam is constructed (or when a landslide naturally forms a pond/lake), that raises the Local Base Level, resulting in more deposition. When Lake Lanier was constructed a little more than 50 years ago, the rising "pool elevation" raised the Local Base Level of all streams entering the lake. In the upper photo, you see the exposed lake-bottom sediments, contributed by local hillside erosion and by deposition of sediments contributioned by this particular small stream, over the course of 50 years.

When the extended drought and dam releases caused a lowering of the pool elevation, that lowered the Local Base Level and resulted in the few inches of erosion (down-cutting) that you see in the upper photo. When the lake returns to its Full-Pool elevation, the upstream Local Base Levels will again rise and down-cutting will cease and sedimentation will resume.

There are characteristic stream behaviors that are affected by the steepness of the stream gradient (Ultimate and Local). When you have a steep gradient (low Ultimate Base Level or Local Base Level), you have more down-cutting in the stream valleys. When the Base Level suddenly rises, the upstream valleys are "back-filled". Remember, a subsidence of a continental margin can mimic a Base Level rise.

On Coastal Plains and River Deltas, where the gradient is very low, lateral erosion causes migration of the stream channels and the resulting meanders. And usually in this situation, you have wide floodplains and/or local low-relief topography. When you have a low-gradient feature, such as river meanders, in an area with great topographic relief, that can tell you of a rapid drop in Ultimate Base Level or a rapid uplift of the landmass, such as with the Colorado Plateau (discussed in the next post of this series) or with some other regional feature, such as the land surrounding the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River, in Colorado.

Changes in Local Base Level (including some caused by human activities) can have smaller scale effects on local streams (as decsribed above regarding Lake Lanier).

[Previous posts are linked here.]

Labels: , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 11:38 AM 0 comments
|

An Alliance of Barracudas and PUMAs?

One of the "sideshows" of the Sarah Palin nomination for Vice President is watching the dilemma thrown into the laps of "centrist/independent" women, who had a tendency to follow the Democrat Party on "women's issues" because Libs/Dems "talk a good game" while Republicans do a lousy job of explaining themselves and proving themselves worthy of more attention.

A woman VP that could become a President is something Libs and Dems have wanted for a long time.

But when "Hillary's turn" came around, the powers-that-be in the shadow party (George Soros, et al?), decided to go with the equivalent of a "trophy wife" in Barack Obama and worse, snubbing Hillary for Democrat VP.

Hopefully, Hillary supporters (PUMAs and others) are now seeing that Lib support for women extends only as far as it benefits "the agenda". In other words, millions of women are now finding out what Conservatives already knew, that Democrat support for strong independent women (and minorities, too) is a "mile wide and an inch deep". As long as they follow the plan, they get Democrat support. If they really become independent and "leave the reservation", the support evaporates.

Now "the rubber has hit the road" and Hillary's "ride to the White House" has been carjacked, leaving her standing on the side of the proverbial road to the White House. She has been publicly scorned.

Instead of supporting a possible losing Obama bid, through clinched teeth, will she silently hitch a ride on the "Barracuda Express" (aka the Saracuda Express), as a way to gain some revenge, while watching and learning new tricks for 2012?

Or will she realize that maybe she isn't meant to enter the "Promised Land" of the White House?
Hillary can star in a new role as a backstage "Kingmaker" (or Queenmaker, if you will). It might provide her just as much satisfaction, watching Obama crash and burn and also extracting some silent revenge on Oprah for her support of Obama, when it was "her turn".

[As a side issue, Drudge reports this morning that Oprah is balking at the prospect of having Sarah Palin on her show. If Oprah doesn't invite Sarah Palin, will this be a "tipping point" for Oprah's fortunes? That point where hubris overcame her business sense?]

Will the MSM/Democrat attacks on Sarah Palin become bad enough that Hillary might publicly break with the Democrat Party? Especially if she saw enough of a building backlash? Might this be an "October Surprise"? Hillary could pull this off by saying "I have always been a maverick myself" and throwing her support and some cash towards McCain/Palin. If she does it behind the scenes, it could be leaked, thus a public announcement would allow Hillary to control the spin (and damage) while saying "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" (now where have we heard this before?).

Rush has constantly said, "don't count the Clintons out". We know they are opportunistic (they would use the words "flexible and resourceful"). Might Hillary see a 2012 Palin/Clinton ticket in the future? Again she would still be part of history, though not quite as she invisioned it.

Hang on for the adventure.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 10:10 AM 2 comments
|

Will "Hurricane Sarah" Visit a NASCAR race?

I would be willing to guess that she would. I don't know how active NASCAR is in Alaska, but as she seems like a "good old girl", she would probably enjoy the experience and she would probably be welcomed warmly.

It is probably short notice, but is Virginia one of those states that are "in play"? The final race to determine the Chase lineup is at Richmond this weekend. We will see.

Labels: , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 6:50 AM 0 comments
|

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

James Lewis Nails It

[From the American Thinker blog, yesterday.]

Liberalism as a mindset or philosophy or whatever you wish to call it.

Dr. Thomas Sowell explained it in "Vision of the Anointed". Michael Savage attributes it to a mental disorder. Rush Limbaugh regularly highlights the arrogance of those that call themselves "Progressives", but rarely admit to being Socialists or "Liberals" (in the modern sense).

Hubris or narcissism are two more apt terms that apply to those that infest much of today's Democrat Party. [Just out of curiosity, how many humble high-profile Libs can you think of? I guess the difference between confidence and arrogance could be a matter of interpretation. And Conservatives/Republicans are not immune from arrogance.] But is it all based upon the shallowness of emotions, feelings, and a desire to avoid deeper aspects of thought-based responses and actions.

It derives from the wish that life was fair. When we are young, it is understandable, when we age and supposedly gain wisdom and experience, to cling solely to ideals of "what should be" illustrates arrested development and rage when idealism meets harsh reality. And it leads to tyranny when government is employed to enforce "fairness" and "what should be".

But to address yesterday morning's writings of James Lewis, he first addresses the wishing-for-Gustav disaster remarks of Don Fowler by printing excerpts of Fowler's excuse:

""If this offended anybody, I personally apologize," Fowler told ABC News. "It was a mistake, and it was a satirical statement made in jest. And one that I clearly don't believe ... One doesn't anticipate that one's private conversation will be surreptitiously taped by some right-wing nutcase," said Fowler. "But that's the nature of what we're dealing with.""

In true Liberal fashion, Fowler didn't say he was sorry he said it. Also in true Liberal fashion, Fowler attacks the messenger. No doubt he is more sorry he got caught than for what he said. As it has been said that Libs would rather lose a war than an election, the same applies for losing a city rather than losing an election.

James Lewis defines one of the central desires of Libs, to achieve "Social Justice":

""Social justice" is the revenge of the psychologically oppressed against people who look happier and more satisfied with their lives."

[It is jealousy-based and shallow because it is easier to tear down someone else than to address your own faults and to improve yourself.]

"The Left always counts its presidential chickens before they're hatched. They did it with Algore, they did it with Kerry. They think they have victory in their grasp, and when reality says otherwise they feel robbed and betrayed. They have to find dark plots and conspiracies to explain the impossible; the Supreme Court was corrupt in stopping the Al Gore assault on the election rules in Florida. Ohio's voting machines were hacked to give George W. Bush his win there. Today, Algore is still bulking up with rage, eight years after Florida. Kerry still thinks he was "swiftboated" -- when his Swiftboat chain of command finally got its chance to tell the truth."

Lewis continues:

..."The Left is entitled to power, because in their own eyes they have Truth and Morality on their side."

And...

"Entitlement, grandiosity, narcissism: In psychiatric thinking they all suffer from secret feelings of inferiority, narcissistic wounds to their self-esteem. Every time they lose, those nagging feelings come up again. So they are always overcompensating, trying to bully reality into the shape they need."...

One Cosmos has some additional observations to add to this discourse on malignant narcissism, as does this post at American Digest.

To give a brief taste of One Cosmos' analysis of the James Lewis article:

..."What the left calls "social justice" is actually "the revenge of the psychologically oppressed against people who look happier and more satisfied with their lives." As such, it is intimately related to the psychoanalytic understanding of envy, which is an unconscious mechanism that goes about destroying what one does not have, in order to eliminate the emotional pain of not having it. "...[Emphasis added.]

[So pretending to be a psychoanalyst, might this be why so many pundits are tearing down Governor Palin? Because they are jealous of her "frontier existence"? Is this why Jimmy Carter has persisted in tearing down his people, his nation, and President Bush, because he was "denied his destiny" before its completion, when he was turned out of office by the American people? Is this how Jimmy Carter compensates for his emotional pain, by convincing himself that we don't deserve someone of his wisdom and vision?]

To complete your assignment, go read the linked posts.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 7:12 AM 0 comments
|

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

600 Horsepower, 2800 lbs, 15-inch Wide Tires,...

98 mph on a 3/8 mile track.

Yeah, that works! My son, son in-law, and I went to our local NASCAR sanctioned raceway on Saturday night. Yeah, we are rednecks of a fashion.

Along with shortened versions of the weekly divisions, there was a 150-lap touring event, this time by the Whelen Southern Modified Tour. Generally it is the touring series that provide drivers the chance to advance to the higher-profile NASCAR divisions.

Though it was raining when we reached the track, the rain soon ended and the late afternoon sun helped dry the track. During the wait, the raceway opened the gate and allowed the fans to walk among the racecars, greet the drivers and get autographs.

From the first two photos, you can see why they call them "Modifieds". The winning car, #28 is a Ford-based body, while the #07 of second place of Frank Fleming, is a Chevy. No pretext of "stock" here.

In the past, this type of racecar was the training ground for Bobby Allison, the Bodine brothers, Ron Bouchard, and Jimmy Spencer, all of which won races in what is now called the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (or the Craftsman Truck Series) . Bobby Allison won the 1983 Sprint Cup (nee' Winston Cup) series along with 80 some-odd Sprint Cup events.

The last photo is of George Brunnhoelzl III, celebrating his first series win with his dad, in Victory Lane. Would AA-level baseball parks have opened the field before or after the game for fans to greet the players or for fans to photograph a post-game interview of the winning pitcher? We will get some sort of idea next year as the AAA Richmond Braves are becoming the AAA Gwinnett Braves.

George Brunnhoelzl III is a third-generation race car driver from Babylon, NY. For anyone interested, here is more info on the race and the results. So instead of fretting about the costs of major league sporting events or the traffic, find a "farm system" event, where you may see future stars on their way. Both my son and daughter have seen drivers at this track that have gone on to run NASCAR Nationwide Series and Craftsman Truck Series events.

Labels:

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 6:06 AM 2 comments
|

Monday, September 01, 2008

Found an Interesting Blog

Maritime Sentry, not new, but new to me and I will put a link on the right side of this blog.

Go give it a read, after spending a little time here, of course.
Posted by: on-the-rocks / 9:39 AM 0 comments
|

Just a Reminder of What Margaret Sanger was About

From the blog "After Abortion", comes this reminder of the racist, eugenicist views of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Within that particular post is this Wall Street Journal article about the NAACP and Planned Parenthood.

Did Barack Obama wrestle with this history before he made his address to Planned Parenthood? [I don't recall the exact date, but here is my crude link to a YouTube video.]

Briefly listening to this video, Barack opened with extending thanks to Planned Parenthood and (paraphrasing), included men giving thanks to Planned Parenthood for the help PP gives men (as in helping them dodge their responsibilities). I think the "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby" remark was from a townhall meeting. I don't know if he repeated it at the Planned Parenthood function (I am not sure of the timeline).

Anyway, it just provides a few things about which to think.

Labels: , ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 9:21 AM 0 comments
|

As I Have Stated Before...

Nat Hentoff is one of the few Liberals that I respect.

I don't always agree with him, but he is willing to stand up against the Leftists of the party, at least on the Classical Liberal fight against tyranny, free-speech issues, and perhaps on some other issues.

I don't always read his WorldNetDaily columns, so I missed this, but on May 28, 2008, he "presented" the idea of Sarah Palin as John McCain's VP nominee!

Here are a few selected paragraphs from Hentoff:

..."Because of Palin's reputation as a maverick, and her initial reduction of state spending (including pork-barrel spending), life-affirming Palin connects with voters and has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for John McCain.

She would be a decided asset – an independent Republican governor, a woman, a defender of life against the creeping culture of death and a fresh face in national politics, described in "the Almanac of National Politics" as "an avid hunter and fisher with a killer smile who wears designer glasses and heels, and hair like modern sculpture."...

...and the final paragraph:

..."And her presence could highlight Obama's extremist abortion views on whether certain lives are worth living, even a child born after a botched abortion."

Go read the rest of the Hentoff piece.

I predict he will get even fewer Christmas cards from "libs" this December (Oops, I meant Winter Holiday cards), especially if McCain/Palin wins.

Labels: ,

Posted by: on-the-rocks / 8:29 AM 0 comments
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?