When the British hostages are recovered from Iran, Britain should immediately launch an attack against Iran. They should punish them severely from the air and sea and then quietly withdraw. Iran should not be allowed to take such a hostile action without consequences. Britain should not accept the humiliation that the USA accepted (that is, Jimmy Carter accepted) during the embassy hostage situation in 1980. If we had retaliated appropriately then (yes, Ronald Reagan could have done that after he took office in 1981), Iran might not be the troublemaker that it is today.

Whether or not the Brits wandered into Iranian territory is irrelevant. Rational nations don't initiate international incidents over miscalibration of GPS devices. If the Iranians sincerely believed that their GPS coordinates were correct and the Brit's were wrong, then a simple warning to the Brits on-scene should have been sufficient to deal with the breach. It is clear that the Iranians wanted to provoke an incident.

Since this is a maritime incident, Iranian ports would be appropriate targets for the attack. But no, they can't do that because it might disrupt the flow of oil from Iran. In fact, attacking any target in Iran might provoke them to shut off the flow of oil to Western Nations. Maybe the Brits aren't willing to be held hostage to their thirst for oil. But many in the USA would rather have pretty beaches than energy independence. Maybe the Brits will have the courage to weather some short-term consequences of an attack to gain the longer-term benefits. After all, Iran is as dependent on selling its oil as the West is on buying it.

---

CBS News reports:

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

So what? President Bush should simply ignore the "rebuke." He should just announce after a few weeks that he has taken "a fresh look" and found no compelling reason to change his current policy.

Anyway, I don't know how a 5-4 decision by the Court can be considered a rebuke. It would appear that the Court is divided almost down the middle on the issue.

I have said that no bill before Congress should become law without approval by a two-thirds majority. I also believe that all rulings by the courts (Supreme, District, and Appeals) should be unanimous. If a small number of justices can't reach agreement on an issue, then it should be considered a 'no decision'.

Another argument for unanimous decisions is that the makeup of some courts -- like the present Supreme Court -- essentially gives one justice the power to make most rulings. The Supreme Court often decides along ideological lines. The Court is now made up of four liberals, four conservatives and one moderate. The vote of the moderate 'swing voter', Anthony Kennedy, often determines the decision on major cases before the Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Again, so what? Police have the authority to shoot criminals when threatened by them but they don't always do so. (Yeah, I know. They do sometimes shoot innocent citizens when they aren't threatened by them.) 'Authority' doesn't mean 'obligation.' If the Supreme Court thinks it does, does that mean that the Court will rule in my favor if I sue the federal government to get them to enforce immigration laws? That may turn out to be the best thing about this ruling: It establishes a precedent that can be used to force the government to shut down the flow of illegals into this country.

---

Dear Susan,

In a recent column at FoxNews.com you said:

How does Hillary Clinton beat Rudy Giuliani? The answer is simple. Experience. She has it. He doesn't. And it's already beginning to show.

Hillary has more experience than Rudy? I'm ROFL.

You went on to talk a lot about how dirty Rudy is and how his experience is limited to New York City. You didn't mention that Hillary's executive experience is limited to... none!

What you liberals don't and can't understand is that many of the voters don't care if a candidate is not squeaky clean. What we want is a candidate that we believe has the courage to stand up to the threats to our culture and security. And we don't care if we are disliked by the rest of the world. In fact, if we were more disliked maybe fewer people would want to come here. (Yeah, right.)

We have a 'nice' president now with a first lady that has sweetness oozing from her pores -- and look what that has given us. A mess in Iraq from trying to do something 'nice' for the Iraqi people instead of just kicking their asses and leaving. Illegals swarming across our country trying to turn it into the sorry place they chose to leave. Huge increases in federal involvement in an education system that has absolutely no chance of ever improving its ability to properly educate our children. An administration completely intimidated by the opposition party -- as in Plame-Wilson and US Attorney firings. I could go on and on about the fruits of niceness in a president.

In short, Susan, it might be kind of 'nice' to have a president with a few rough edges. Such a president might be willing to do what needs to be done without worrying so much about what the media, foreigners and the opposition think about him or her. We need a president who doesn't consider the moral standing of a threat. When this country is threatened it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. A threat is a threat. Would you surrender your home to invading neighbors because you know they need food and shelter? I don't think so. You might invite needy neighbors into your home but you wouldn't allow them to take it by force.

I certainly wouldn't mind having Rudy as president, but right now I'm leaning towards Ron Paul. If Fred Thompson gets in the race I'll most likely support him. One thing is certain though: I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton for dogcatcher.

Sincerely,

Carson Sasser

---

I'm no great fan of Don Imus or his show. But I do occasionally watch a few minutes of it for much the same reason that I watch Donald Trump's show: clowns can be entertaining.

How anyone can take seriously anything that Imus says is beyond my comprehension. His show has always been about disparaging people. He routinely has friendly conversations with politicians and reporters on the phone and then insults them after they hang up. Calling members of the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" was a stupid thing to do, but doing and saying stupid things is his trademark. What made this stupid remark different is that the race hustlers were apparently short on ambulances to chase. Sharpton and Jackson jumped on it like buzzards on road-kill.

The term that Imus used comes from blacks. It is indiscriminately used by rappers to refer to black women in general. The only difference that I can see between Imus and rappers is that Imus applied the term to a specific group of women that he had no reason to believe are whores. The idea that it is alright for blacks, but not whites, to use terms like "nappy-headed hos" and "niggas" is absurd.

The concept of an exclusive "black community" that I've heard mentioned a lot this week is more racist to me than Imus' stupid remark. On one talk show black guests insisted that problems like Imus' remark had to be handled by the black community and that whites should stay out of it. Imagine the outcry if a white person suggested that blacks should move aside and let us white folks deal with our problems. Further, how does this black community alone expect to deal with a problem that obviously involves whites? Clearly, what the black guests really meant is that they don't want any dissent from whites, just acquiescence.

The best way to handle an incident like this is to let the free market decide. Instances of forced viewing of radio and television shows are rare. The only time I listen to rap music is when I hear it from a car next to me at a traffic light. Most individuals are free to tune in or not to tune in. If you don't like what is being said or shown just don't listen or watch. Choose another program or read a book. If you don't like the music don't buy the CD. If enough people don't listen or watch the show will eventually go away. If enough people don't buy the CDs the music will go away.

Of course the corporation airing the show and its sponsors are free to make market decisions too. In this case MSNBC and the sponsors have chosen to cancel the television show. I would have preferred that they wait and let the viewers decide but it is their decision to make. I hope their decision was market based and not just caving to the race extortionists.

---

Why does the Internal Revenue Service encourage us to file our income tax returns electronically? The answer is quite simple. Because they can process electronic returns faster and less expensively than paper returns. But that begs another question. If it is less expensive for the IRS to process electronic returns than paper returns, why do we have to pay extra to file electronically?

E-filing costs ten dollars or more whether you pay it directly or it's included in the cost of your tax-filing software. Filing by mail only costs about a dollar for most people (postage, envelope, paper and printing). E-filing is more convenient for most of us too, but that doesn't justify our having to pay about ten times the cost of filing by mail.

Each year I prepare and file three returns: my own, my mother's and my wife's mother's. It took me less than an hour to print the returns, address the envelopes and mail the returns. I saved about 27 dollars. Until the IRS lowers the cost of e-filing to about that of filing by mail, I will continue to file by mail.

The current charge for e-filing is just another tax.

---

CBS News reports, in an article titled "Duke Case Spurs Campus Culture Cleanup," that Duke University administrators are undertaking an introspective examination of campus culture. But wait. Before you jump to the conclusion that they are talking about looking into why they immediately presumed that the accused lacrosse players were guilty and took several punitive actions against them, consider this:

The notoriety of the case forced Duke to the front of academe in this evaluation of student life and campus culture. But colleges across the U.S. are also soul-searching and refining policies in the wake of the case, recognizing that Duke is not the only campus where the confluence of race, sex, privilege, and booze could spark a scandal.

"In part because of the Duke scandal, there's a trend in higher education towards increasing accountability for perpetrators, more and better support for victims, and ... more intensive prevention programs," says Alan Berkowitz, a social justice consultant in Trumansburg, N.Y.

Not sure about who they mean by perpetrators and victims? Read on:

... since the case came to the fore last spring, colleges have been instituting or hurrying planned changes to address the problems of an athletics-dominated college atmosphere, where even Division III schools are relying on fine-tuned squads to draw recruits and prestige.

Still not certain what they think the real problem is? Keep reading:

"The Duke situation does reinforce the importance of not presuming a student is guilty, but, while tragic for the individuals involved, it has also had the important effect of causing universities to rethink the role athletes play and the rules that govern conduct," says Karen-Ann Broe, a risk analyst at UEI.

Yes, they are still piling on the athletes. The athletes are the perps! While admitting that it is not good to prejudge someone, they still intend to blame the athletes for the whole thing.

I can save the university administrators a lot of money. No matter how many nannies you hire to lecture to a bunch of college boys some of them are going to get themselves and you in trouble. Don't assume that you can do anything to make college life all that different from life in general.

---

The Crestview News Bulletin reports that a "Baker Fire District referendum flames out." Baker is a small town here in NWFL. The district was asking for an increase from $56 to $85 for annual residential assessments and from $90 to $125 for commercial assessments. The referendum, which was conducted by mail, was defeated 311 votes to 186 votes.

Commission Chairman Ben Carr speculated that having to pay the return postage on the ballots might have suppressed participation in the referendum and implied that it might have affected the outcome. He seems to believe that there were at least 126 voters who were willing to pay 29 to 35 dollars more each year for fire protection but weren't willing to pay 39 cents to say so.

While I can believe that having to pay the return postage could have suppressed more 'yes' votes than 'no' votes, I seriously doubt that it affected the outcome. It's easier for me to believe that the voters were influenced more by their level of confidence in the fire district commission than by a one-time 39 cent cost.

---

As expected, the Virginia Tech massacre has resulted in a hue and cry for more restrictions on the ownership and possession of guns. There should be debate about why such horrendous attacks occur and how to prevent them, but the primary focus should be on the attackers and what motivates them to commit such heinous acts. Take away guns and evil people will find other means to wreak havoc. Timothy McVeigh proved that possibility in Oklahoma City more than ten years ago.

Suppose that Cho Seung-Hui had encountered difficulty in legally acquiring a gun. Then the obvious alternative would have been to try to get one illegally. But suppose he wasn't street-wise enough to do that. Would a psychopath, or whatever label properly applies to this pond scum, just give up? Not likely. It might take him longer to pull off an attack but he would most likely just find another way. If he could manage to chain all the doors to a large building without being challenged, he could probably manage to improvise a backpack full of explosives. Instructions on how to build bombs are readily available. The death toll from an alternative approach could have been much higher than 32.

We have to accept that for law-abiding citizens to have guns the criminal elements are also going to have access to guns. And we have to acknowledge that banning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of the criminal elements. Remember, that's why they are called 'criminal elements'; they don't abide by laws. Virginia Tech, with its 'gun free zone', gave Cho an advantage; he knew that he could methodically gun down the students and teachers without any significant resistance. If just one student, teacher or staff member had a gun available to use against Cho the death toll might have been much less.

The liberal media would like us to react emotionally and agree to further inroads against our rights as indidviduals. Instead let's try to look at the issue logically. Which would give you the most comfort when you hear someone trying to break into your home: knowing that it is against the law for anyone to have a gun or knowing that you legally have one beside your bed? Which do you think gives the criminal contemplating breaking into your home the most discomfort: knowing that it is against the law for anyone to have a gun or knowing that you might legally have one beside your bed?

---

There is no 'War in Iraq.' There hasn't been since Baghdad and the Saddam regime fell in 2003. Our operations in Iraq since then have been just policing actions. I've written about the 'Iraq War' myself. This blog even has an 'Iraq War' category. But, if you consider the difference between what we're doing in Iraq and the way wars are usually conducted, you have to admit that what's going on in Iraq is not a war.

The 'War in Iraq' is a lot like our 'War on Drugs.' Our government insists that we've been at war with the purveyors of illegal drugs in America for years, but we've made no significant progress. There are many reasons that we've made little progress in this 'war' -- and many reasons why we shouldn't be in it -- but the biggest reason is that the 'war' is crippled by its rules of conduct. And the reason it has these crippling rules of conduct is that it's a policing action and not a war at all. If it was a war we wouldn't have to get a court order to raid a suspect's home or business. We aren't serious enough about achieving the objectives of the 'War on Drugs' to be calling it a war. Neither are we serious enough about securing Iraq to be calling it a war.

In Iraq we have a lot of vague political objectives but no military objectives. The military is better suited to capture and hold operations than it is to 'persuade everyone to behave and learn to like us' operations. Most of the time we don't even know who is the enemy. The Iraqi elements fight among themselves and we stand by bemused by it all, not really knowing which element we want to prevail.

The only way to subdue and control the people of a foreign nation is to first beat them into submission. Take away everything they have and treasure and make them dependent. This would require destroying all their institutions and much of their infrastructure, killing or imprisoning all their leaders, and, of course, completely disarming them. Then, once all their hope is lost, ride in to their rescue and rebuild their lives for them giving them prosperity that they never knew before. Afterward, talk about returning to the old ways won't gain much traction. (Please understand that I'm not recommending that this is what should have been done in Iraq. I'm simply saying that given the objective of turning Iraq into an America-like democracy, this is the only approach that would work. I've said before that I think we should have left Iraq to the Iraqis as soon as we captured or killed Saddam, his sons and most of his henchmen.)

In the future I hope we don't go to war unless it is absolutely critical to our survival as a free nation. When we do I hope we really mean it and are prepared to see it through (that means do what is neccesary to win).

---

Today I was listening to CBS News on the radio while hauling a load of trash to the dump (somehow that seems appropriate). They reported that some expert (didn't catch the name) had issued a new warning of dire consequences to come from global warming. He estimates that the world will face severe food shortages within about a hundred years. Whoa! I think I'll run to the market tomorrow and stock up.

He also said that people who are "most vulnerable and least able to adapt" to the adverse effects of global warming will suffer the most. Where do they find these experts? The weak will suffer more than the strong? The poor will suffer more than the wealthy? They should hold a conference to discuss and expand on this guy's thinking.  I'll suggest another twist on his logic:  A person standing in the path of a speeding bullet is more likely to be hurt by the bullet than a person not standing in its path.

I've noticed that there are about three articles per week on global warming in the news feeds that I track on the internet. They seem to follow a particular format. Each article contains at least two elements: a new warning of its consequences and a declaration that the debate of its causes is over. I'm sure there is an organization somewhere that is tasked to pump the articles out.

Glowarm dissenters can take comfort in the fact that the people staffing that organization don't appear to be all that bright.

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• Next page -->