DADvocate

Not that anyone really cares, but I've decided to Commit to Mitt. Of the candidates remaining, Democrat or Republican, Mitt Romney seems the most likely to make any real change in Washington. Yes, Barack Obama is the one preaching "change" but in reality he's headed into socialism just like Hillary except maybe faster. He is a much more pleasant person than Hilary. (Duh!)

As for Hillary, if you want 4 to 8 more years of the ruling oligarchy and Clintonian histrionics, you will get what you deserve.

Romney's primary value is his mastery of economics. With a country deeply in debt, nationally and individually, we need a president who can lay a course to economic strength. It was our economic strength that led us to victory in the Cold War. It is our impending economic weakness that threatens our way of life more than any other current crisis.

The health care crisis will deepen if we are broke. Fighting terrorism requires economic strength. An economically weak country is at the mercy of world markets rather than driving world markets.

Romney also has solid positions on the other main issues. Plus, he has the intellect to accomplish the tasks. For all you left wing bigots, don't be too concerned about his religion. Harry Reid is a Mormon, also.

Being an unfortunate reality, the race issue grows steadily larger in the Democratic primaries. Instapundit pointed out a column in the Boston Herald that explains Obama will lose by winning in South Carolina.

As Morris puts it:

“If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a block vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.”

No matter what happens in South Carolina today - even if Obama wins a plurality among white voters - the Clintons and their media stooges have turned South Carolina into “the black primary.”

In fact, the bigger his win, the more it reinforces the campaign-killing message that Barack Obama is “their” candidate.

In other words, the Clinton, who claim to be champions of civil rights and racial equality, have no qualms of using race to stop a black man on his quest to further his position in society. More:

It’s cynicism at its lowest. It is utterly shameful. And yet every “Bush is Hitler!” liberal in America will quietly go along.

Bill and Hillary will pay no political price among liberal voters, or even among black voters, for what they have done. She will still get 90 percent of the black vote in November, and Bill will be greeted like a rock star in Harlem.

Obama, unwisely, plays right into the Clintons hands. At the historically black South Carolina State University, Obama said:

"I don't want Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for other folks," he said, contrasting the white Republican ex-lobbyist with the black youths in Louisiana.

Initially this got a rise out of this old white boy. I could care less about Scooter Libby but "Jena justice," what is that? Is that justice where several black guys beat the crap out of a white guy and then walk because someone else hung a noose from a tree weeks before? Obama won't win any votes like. Of course, the media and the Clintons will make sure every honky around will hear Obama's statement.

I like Obama's message of working "with Americans across the political spectrum." We've had enough of the divisiveness that the Clintons thrive upon. We no longer need a house divided. While I won't vote for any Democrat at this point, I hope the Clintons' strategy fails and we can look forward to a more unified nation no matter who wins.

Oh, while writing this post, I learned the Obama has won South Carolina "routing" Hillary. It'll be interesting to see what develops from here and the tactics the Clintons take. Of course, the article linked makes sure to promote race as an issue.

UPDATE: As has been predicted and now widely reported, Bill Clinton continues to appeal to racist tendencies in the South. Listen to the question, it makes no reference to race, "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?"

Bill thinks he is a master of subtlety. Remember him explaining the meaning of the word "is?" Clinton politics have always resembled a borderline personality disorder attempting to pit one group against another, i.e. "splitting." More and more their true colors are showing through. Even liberals seem to be getting it: More important than battling racism, more important than nearly anything, is their being in power. If that means encouraging significant portions of the population to hate each other, so be it.

When the economy goes in the dumps Congress and the Prez react by giving us a tax "rebate." If less tax and more money in our hands is good for the economy, why don't they just permanently lower taxes? (It's not like the government couldn't improve efficiency.)

Just asking. I'm no economist.

BTW - It only took the Democratic Congress a year to put the economy in the dumper. I wonder what they can do if we elect a Democratic president.

This is a few months old but I couldn't resist. A woman broke up with her beau by emailing him a PowerPoint presentation. I especially like slide 7 (of 9) where she says:

• Please drop off my iPod
• Can you pay me for the Dave Matthews tickets?
• Can you still watch my dog next week?
• Inform key friends & family

Pay me? Watch my dog! I'd say this guy was lucky to escape from this self-centered woman who feels so entitled. I hope the hell he didn't watch her dog.

Never occurred to me to celebrate Robert E. Lee Day. But, Arkansas has been celebrating Robert E. Lee with an official holiday for over half a century including during Bill Clinton's tenure as governor. Seems the Clintons' idea of change didn't include bringing Arkansas into post-Civil War America. Probably would have cost too many votes. One of the great ironies of a democracy, people who seek the power and prestige of high public office often prostitute themselves to attain it while sacrificing the values they claim to hold dear.

Cincinnati Public Schools is dismissing the entire teaching staff, including the principal, at an under performing elementary school.

The entire teaching staff of an under performing Cincinnati elementary school is being replaced, along with the school's principal.

Officials said Taft Elementary has not met standards for nine years, and students score about 20 points below the district average on standardized tests.

---

The school's principal and 11 teachers will finish out the school year, officials said.

---

Officials said they hope the changes send a clear message to the community.

“We want success, we're working for success and we will make the hard and good decisions and find the partners to help us move into the future," Bolton said.

I would imagine this would also send a clear message to teachers and administrators who aren't willing to put forth the effort to make schools work.

Cincinnati has an ongoing problem with sub-par schools (among other things) which contributes to the outward flow of those who can afford to live in surrounding communities. I'm not sure I fully approve of such drastic measures but maybe it's what is needed in this case.

Today DrHelen posted on Hillary Clinton and Hillary's promised role in the economy. One of the issues addressed is who determines the pay of corporate CEOs. This brought some discussion of corporate greed and CEO greed and got me to thinking.

Who's the greediest? A CEO who spends years getting the training, education and experience to be a CEO and then works his way to that position with all its perks? And in the process usually provides jobs for others and otherwise contributes to society. Or, a person who spends 57 of their 58 years on the public dole, has a subsidized apartment and 60" flat screen TV and then demands more?

Hat tip to PsychoPhil.

I've been slowly reading Johnny Cash's autobiography, "Cash." It's a good read. Cash's down-to-earth persona shines through. My favorite line so far: "Ostrich attacks are rare in Tennessee..."

As a kid I loved The Three Stooges. The last time I went to the beautiful Tennessee Theater in downtown Knoxville was to watch a Three Stooges marathon. I caught a short of the Three Stooges on TV this morning that included this exchange:

Moe: "Let a man handle this!"

Larry: "Where will we find one?"

Thus I realized the origin of much of my own humor.

Lorrie Moore, in the New York Times, discusses the Hillary, Obama and the problems facing boys.

Does her being a woman make her a special case? Does gender confer meaning on her candidacy? In my opinion, it is a little late in the day to become sentimental about a woman running for president. The political moment for feminine role models, arguably, has passed us by. The children who are suffering in this country, who are having trouble in school, and for whom the murder and suicide rates and economic dropout rates are high, are boys — especially boys of color, for whom the whole educational system, starting in kindergarten, often feels a form of exile, a system designed by and for white girls.

In the progressive Midwestern city where I live, the high school dropout rate for these alienated and written-off boys is alarmingly high. Some are even middle-class, but many are just hanging on, their families torn apart by harsh economics and a merciless criminal justice system.

---

Boys are faring worse — and the time for symbols and leaders they can connect with beneficially should be now and should be theirs. Hillary Clinton’s gender does not rescue society from that — instead she serves as a kind of nostalgia for a time when it might have. Only her policies are what matter now, and here — despite some squabbling and bad advice that has caused her to “go negative” — the Democrats largely agree. But inspiration is essential for living, and Mr. Obama holds the greater fascination for our children.

---

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton’s scripted air of expectation might make one welcome any zeitgeisty parvenu. Her “35 years of experience” puzzle in their math. Like Rudolph Giuliani, who wants to keep voters safe from terrorism though his own mayoral bunker was beneath the World Trade Center, Mrs. Clinton wants kudos for the disaster of her failed national health plan. She counts heavily her eight years in the White House. Well, then, she’s already been there! Good for her. Next?

I applaud Ms. Moore for taking up the case of boys. A significant difference between where girls/women stood 40 years ago and where boys/men stand now is where they stand. Forty years ago, a females suffered discrimination, and had difficulty entering certain professions, educational institutions, etc. But, what happened to these females due to these societal restrictions?

If you were a middle class woman, like my mother, you were fully supported by your husband. You spent the past 60 years never having to worry where your next paycheck was coming from. And, you had to endure the horror of raising 6 kids, cooking, doing laundry, and cleaning house. But, you had a maid to help with that.

In return, your husband provided for all your worldly needs to the best of his ability. Food, clothes, housing, car, dues to the League of Women Voters, etc. If you divorced, your ex-husband was expected to support you in the manner to which you were accustomed. After all the kids are in school, you might go to college and earn a B.A. and M.S. degrees. You still wouldn't work because you didn't need to.

Today boys have been relegated to second class status. Moore mentions the educational system "often feels a form of exile, a system designed by and for white girls." It goes beyond the educational system. My son and I went to the YMCA yesterday. Hanging in the front lobby were 4 large, offical YMCA banners. Of the 10 people depicted in the banners, 7 were female. Of the full-time employees at the local YMCA, except for maintenance staff, all or nearly all are female.

Often if a man is a stay-at-home father, he is viewed as a slacker. Men still get the shaft in divorce even if the spouse is wealthier. Note the Simpson/Lachey divorce, "Nick dropped a bomb in his papers, asking for alimony." It wouldn't have been a bomb if the gender roles were reversed. Note the Spears/Federline child custody situation. Would the courts be continually willing to consider custody for Federline if he was exhibiting the same behaviors as Spears? Not on your life!

Lorrie Moore argues that Obama's time has come and boys, especially blacks, need an inspiration in their lives. Moore wishes Hillary so long and farewell. As do I. When I reviewed the candidates issues pages the other day, Obama was the only candidate that came close to addressing this issue. Perhaps, Obama deserves the nomination not only because he provides inspiration but because he actually see the problems. Plus, the Clintons and Clintonites have spent the past 16 years creating discord in this country for their own aggrandizement. It's time we moved in a better direction.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Hugo Chavez, world leader most likely to be photographed with a past president or a lefty, appears to be promoting anti-Semitism. From the Miami Herald:

''The situation we have now in Venezuela is that for the first time in modern history we have government-sponsored anti-Semitism in a Western country,'' said Sammy Eppel. ``That is why this is very dangerous, not just for the Jewish community in Venezuela but for the Jewish community as a whole.''

Chavez with Cindy Sheehan.

Chavez and Sean Penn.

Chavez and Harry Belafonte.

Chavez with Naomi Campbell.

Chavez with Kevin Spacey.

Chavez and Danny Glover.

Chavez with Barbara Walters. Walters says Chavez does "positive things." Sound familiar?

Women in Iowa largely voted for Obama. In New Hampshire women went more for Hillary. Laura McKenna believes that liberal women rallied to Hillary because they saw her as threatened.

Lessons learned? If you really want women to vote for Hillary, pick on her clothes and her tears. Call her strident. Call her bitchy. But if you take gender out of the equation, then women are going to weigh her other qualities on the same scale as the guys. Hillary is like my little sister. Only I am allowed to beat her up.

Maybe it is their maternal instinct. This gives some credence to the old "women are too emotional and not logical enough" claim of the old chauvinist pigs. It also shows that the left wing women are as gender biased and sexist as those they protest against.

Ann Althouse has an insightful analysis of Camille Paglia"s column at Salon.com about how much of a manhater Hillary is. But this post isn't about Hillary's misandry. It's about Paglia.

Paglia uses several hundred words to describe Hillary's disdain for men. It is a strongly worded condemning piece. Paglia prefers Obama. But in the end Paglia says, "I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee of my party,..."

Paglia doesn't care that much about men and the issues they face either. She just hides it better.

Despite predictions of an Obama landslide in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton eked out a small victory. Indeed, she won more votes but only the same number of delegates as Obama.

I can't help but wonder if racism played a role. How many people voted for Clinton because Obama is black. New Hampshire is only 1.1% black. The U.S. as a whole is 12.4%. New Hampshire has the second lowest poverty rate of any state in the nation. (Source Census.gov)

Both of these facts point to the possibility that racism could have easily played a role. Also, the largely financially comfortable New Hampshirites may not relate or emphasize with many of the issues Obama addresses. Given that Hillary harps on many of the same issues, racism seems more likely.

Minorities and women's issues have now been political issues for over a century. Presidential candidates don't dare to ignore these issues. To do so would mean assured defeat. What about men's issues? Men are the largest and most ignored minority in the country. The percentage of men making up students in college, medical school and law school has been dropping steadily for several decades. They now make up less than half in these groups. Divorced men are often are separated from their children without a thought.

I went to the "Issues" web page for the top three candidates for each candidate to see where they stood on the challenges facing men in today's American society. Scores on a 0 to 10 scale.

Democrats:

• Hillary Clinton - Hillary's issues page makes no mention of men. She is a "A Champion for Women", however. Her "Supporting Parents and Caring for Children issue page does not mention men or fathers either. Score = 0
• Barack Obama - Obama's main issue page doesn't mention men or women. But, if you go to his "FAMILY issues page, you will find that the first issue he addresses is "Promote Responsible Fatherhood." He outlines the problem of father absence.

  Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. A healthy relationship between children and their fathers is important to good development. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

  At least Obama recognizes some of the problems currently facing men. Score = 3.
• John Edwards - Edwards mentions nearly every conceivable special interest group: African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latinos, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender), Women, Young America, Older Americans, People with Disabilities. Oops! No men. During the previous presidential race, I sent Edwards an email asking his position on men's issues. I guess he hasn't gotten it yet.
  
  In Edwards 80 page "Plan to Build One America," Edwards fails to address a single specific issue for me. He does this section - "An Agenda for American Women................................................................ 68" I guess men aren't a part of Edwards "One America." Score = 0

Republicans:

• John McCain - McCain makes no direct mention of men's or women's issues. I'll give him a 2 for keeping it all equal. Score = 2
• Mitt Romney - Romney doesn't mention men's or women's issues specifically either. Like McCain, I'll give him a 2 for keeping it equal. Score = 2
• Mike Huckabee - Huckabee makes if 3 for 3 for the Republicans not mentioning men's or women's issues specifically. Score = 2

The Democrats address, probably with the hope of garnering votes, specific special interests groups including women, and except for Obama, not men. While Obama's addressing fatherhood issues is a limited part of the challenges facing men it is a start. Although, I like the approach of the Republicans in addressing the population as a whole and not dividing us into self-serving special interest groups.

Two tragic stories, eight kids dead. In the first, a man threw his 4 tots off a bridge to their deaths. In the other story, the badly decomposed bodies were found in a home with a woman.

The story of the man throwing the kids off the bridge came out first, at least in my news sources. Public reaction is justifiable outrage. Here is an example entitled "Bastard".

Ya know, before these sorts of stories would make me shake my head in disgust. Now that I have kids, they make me physically ill for about 15 seconds.

Via (name deleted) who says: It’s bastards like this who make it hard to keep opposing the death penatly (sic).

I wonder if there would be the same outrage if a woman had committed the acts. It would be on at least some people's part. From the comments of the above post:

The Smith drowning of her own children gave me this idea, and I think it would apply here. Put him in a large hamster ball. Then lower him into the water, bringing him up just before he dies. Do it again and again and again.

Watch the blogs and news to find the differing, if any, reactions. I wonder whether these same bloggers will mention the woman with the dead kids in her house.

SayUncle has a good post in which an emailer discusses concealed carry restrictions in public places. The TN Handgun Permit Travel Guide states one "page 52 of the guide noted that handgun carry is restricted “on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center, or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes."

The emailer believes this is unreasonable, as do I, and plans to contact his representatives about relaxing the restrictions. There are some related thoughts at the Volokh conspiracy.

I support the right to bear arms. I find it more than interesting that many left wing groups, such as the ACLU, interpret the religion clause of the first amendment in the broadest terms possible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

The amendment clearly states "Congress." The left interprets this as any governmental body at any level of government, be it federal, state, local. Be it displaying the Ten Commandments, Christmas Trees, Menorahs, "In God We Trust" in a government building, park, or courthouse lawn, or singing Christmas carols at school. Mentioning a "moment of prayer" in school sends lefties into a frenzy and it becomes a Federal case, literally.

What happens when the lefties look at the second amendment?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now we see a narrow, rigid interpretation. "regulated militia" means only a militia, i.e. National Guard or such. "Militia" is not clearly defined and no where is it stated that being a member is a requirement to keep and bear arms. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is quite clear, however. It is also quite clear the meaning of the word "Congress" in the first amendment.

Clearly, the right to bear arms is already infringed upon. Requirements to take and pass concealed carry classes, pay license fees, restrictions like those mentioned by SayUncle's emailer infringe on these rights.

The tenth amendment is also quite clear.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Over the years we have allowed our rights to erode on small step at a time. We have failed to claim and fight for the rights that belong to us and not to the United States.

Bear this in mind in the upcoming elections. How much more of your rights are you willing to let slip away in order to get all the "freebies" candidate after candidate will promise you.

Better to starve free than be a fat slave. - Aesop

Dr. Phil showed up at Britney Spears' hospital room last week to "help." A lot of mental health professionals agree with me that Britney has enough problems without Dr. Phil imposing himself upon her.

According to Dr. Jeffrey Sugar -

"But there's a difference between being detained involuntarily for psychological treatment and being forced to endure Dr. Phil involuntarily."

Amen, brother. But remember, "It's not about YOU!!"

Knox Views ask if you had to vote for a Republican for whom would you vote? Andy Axel, a frequent commenter to that site who fancies himself intellectually superior to, well, everyone, says:

I'm sorry but if I ever *have* to vote for one of these clowns, my choice is for an entrance visa in New Zealand.

Being a helpful person, for all of you who want to emigrate to New Zealand, Immigration New Zealand. (This link is not working properly right now but I copied it from the New Zealand government website.

However, you may want to consider this.

In 2004-2005, a target of 45,000 was set by the Immigration New Zealand and represented 1.5% of the total population. However, the net effect was a population decline, since more left than arrived. 48,815 arrived, and overall the population was 10,000 or 0.25% less than the previous year.

More people leaving than arriving. Not a good sign. Considering that millions want to immigrate to the U.S., I'm sure we could replace Mr. Axel with a happier, more productive citizen quite easily.

The Anchoress points out a couple of videos regarding Hillary in New Hampshire. The first video is Hillary sounding shrewish, angry, pissed off regarding "change."

I find the hand gesture more irritating than the sound of her voice (which, at best, is always irritating). Part of her statement: "I'm running on 35 years of change." Hillary avoids the word "experience" but continues ridiculous claims to experience. Now she's claiming that from age 25 she's been working for change. My only question is, Why did she start working for change so late in life?

I started working for change almost from the moment I was born. I cried to get my diaper changed. I argued with my teachers to get my grades changed. I fuss with my boss to get working conditions changed. I once got $50 for a suggestion for change that was implemented at work.

But, I digress. Yes, Hillary did not sound or look like someone I wanted to listen to from the White House for another 4 to 8 years.

Like The Anchoress, I thought the second video was much more enlightening. This video of of undecided voters in a discussion with FoxNews regarding Hillary vs. Obama. These are Democratic voters trying to decide amongst the Democratic candidates. Hillary is described as "angry, vicious" by a woman. This same woman also states, "We’ve had eight years of not trusting our government. And she’s no different. I can’t trust her. I want to try to trust her. And everything time she opens her mouth lately, it’s things come out that I don’t trust."

A male voters says, "She is the establishment. She doesn't represent change for me. And, I think being the wife of a president isn't the same thing as experience." When asked to give advice to Hillary the first response is, "She should stop citing her husband's record as president as her accomplishments." Hillary's focus on "experience" is hurting her more than helping.

This video suggests that Hillary's chances are sliding downhill hill faster than an overloaded toboggan on a New Hampshire hillside in January. At least, we can hope.

More thoughts on these same videos at Ann Althouse.

A couple of weeks ago I posted on Hillary's supposed experience. Judging from the results in Iowa, many people, including Democrats, agree with me that her claims to experience don't hold water.

New Hampshire doesn't seem to be falling for her "experience" either - "...and gets a significant amount of boos, as she segues into experience." More on the booing at Ann Althouse. Althouse also points out Rush Limbaugh's observation that the more Bill got involved the worse Hillary did.

Captain's Quarters points out that Hillary plans to focus even more on the experience factor.

Instead of insisting on change, a theme more amenable to her opponent, Hillary will instead work on the inexperience of her opponents...

But this easily backfires, as CQ points out because Hillary ain't really that experienced herself.

She has certainly tried to sell herself as a mover in the Clinton administration, realizing that seven years in the Senate only gives her one more year in public office than Edwards and three less than Obama. Hillary attempted to cast herself as someone who got tapped whenever it got too dangerous for the President to handle a situation abroad. The only example she gave of this supposed policy was a trip in which she accompanied the comedian Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow, and her own 15-year-old daughter to a USO show in Tuzla. If nothing else, it shows that the Clinton impulse for hyperbole, exaggeration, and flat-out untruth didn't just come from Bill.

Emphasis added.

CQ links to Politico who also looks at Hillary's new talking points.

"We’re going to continue to make the case that, in these serious times when America faces big challenges, it will take a leader with Hillary’s strength and experience to deliver real change," the talking points say.

Hillary and her advisers just don't understand that her "experience" isn't that impressive. A commenter at Politico, LORETTA, says,

She is what, 15 years older than Barack Obama, and spent 16 years as window dressing during her husband's elected offices, and is silly enough to keep parroting that 35 years' experience line.

I can't believe how Hillary continues, or even began, to claim so much experience when her experience consists primarily of clutching to Bill's coattails.

Extreme Mortman points out that a loss, or win, in Iowa is not a good predictor of who gets in the White House.

1988 Iowa GOP results: Bob Dole 37%, Pat Robertson 25%, George Bush 20%.
1988 New Hampshire GOP results: George Bush 38%, Bob Dole 29%, Jack Kemp 13%, Pete DuPont 11%. And Pat Robertson? Last with 10%.

But, given that Hillary is receiving boos in New Hampshire from fellow Democrats indicates a more serious problem.

One of my infrequent readers left a comment to my post about Philadelphia making the city more woman friendly with no apparent concern for men. In three sentences she sums up the myths of why it's OK to ignore men.

Here's the answer to your questions: women are physically afraid of criminals. Which can be broken down to: women are weaker than criminals and criminals, being stronger than women, are therefore men. Men are not weaker than criminals (since they are criminals) and therefore have no reason to be fearful.

My response:

I understand the being afraid of criminals but what about the sidewalks, etc? I pushed my kids more than their mother did. Plus plenty of men are physically afraid of criminals. I know very few men over the age of 25 (or actually any age) who could effectively defend themselves from me, a 56 year old man, if I attacked them barehanded, let alone with a weapon. What about elderly men? Do we just forget about them because they'll die soon anyway?

Who are the victims of criminals? In 2005, for every 16.6 female victims there were 25.6 male victims. Big difference.

And then there's this: "According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most murder victims were male, 79% in 2005." 4 men murdered for every female murdered. Bigger difference.

You use the typical emotional reasoning seen so often in women's issues. "I'm scared." And everyone goes, "Oh, you poor dear." If a male says he's afraid he's ridiculed and belittled, "Be a man!" "What are you some kind of wimp?" "You big pussy." And, that's just be beginning.

Men are not weaker than criminals (since they are criminals) and therefore have no reason to be fearful.

This is crap. Most violent criminals are men but if you read the newspaper, watch the news or check out CNN.com and FoxNews.com, you'll find plenty of female criminals. Here's one and here's some others. Here's a whole bunch. (Hat tip to DrHelen.)

Few men can confidently walk the streets believing they are bigger and stronger than almost any criminal they may encounter. I'm a big guy, pretty strong and used to be quite athletic. But, I knew plenty of guys bigger and stronger.

Now, at age 56, I can still do over 40 push ups (just did 45 to be sure) but my 14 year old son is stronger than I. How confident do I feel when I see a group of unruly youngsters on the street? Moderately at best. What if they have a knife, gun or club?

Stand outside your own female psyche and try to see that men experience the world very differently than you believe. Your comments are grossly simplistic, demeaning and callous. Unfortunately, those words probably reflect the thoughts of too many others.

A Russian scientist, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, believes the Earth is beginning a cooling phase not a warming phase.

Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

Emphasis added.

My 14 year old son will be delighted to find that the world is cooling. Last week he went snowboarding at Perfect North Slopes in Indiana, a mediocre but convenient and reasonably ski resort. He had a blast and can't wait to go again.

Sorokhtin who is a Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and a staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute, goes on to give an explanation of processes involved in global warming and cooling. His explanation jives much better with I learned in college geology than the claims of Gorism.

True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary.

Rather, the presence of CO2 is the result of warming not the cause.

Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

It is abundantly apparent to anyone who has taken intro geology (and paid attention) that the Earth went through dramatic climatic fluctuations before the existence of man and since. It is also abundantly apparent that Al Gore needs to be in the public limelight. He needs to see himself as a significant leader and a modern day prophet. Underneath everything he does is a driving, compelling need to be THE ONE. Gore is closer to a cult leader than anything else, and a very good one at that.


Sorokhtin leaves us, or at least those pesky Europeans, with some words of comfort.

Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.

John Tierney in The New York Times makes a prediction you can take to the bank.

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

---

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

Read the whole thing.

All I know is this winter is off to a good, cold start in these parts. Before Christmas break, my kids' schools were closed for snow for one day and started late another day. I can't remember that last time they had a "snow day" before Christmas. Their school was closed again today and will be tomorrow due to snow also. This is not a good sign for the rest of the winter. A low of 4⁰ is predicted for tonight. Woooh doggies!!

No matter what the weather, it's due to human caused "climate change." It used to be called global warming but it doesn't always get warmer. "Climate change" is such a nice term because we can label anything "climate change." And, one thing's as certain as "100 Percent Chance of Alarm" and that's a changing climate, humans or no humans.

Hat tip to Erick at Redstate.